Jump to content

User talk:Buidhe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Dicussion on Talk:Theresa May#Pronunciation

As the above-mentioned discussion could use some more input, I'm inviting all the active members of the phonetics project to participate. Ardalazzagal (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-native pronunciations of English

Hi. In this series of edits, you added a section utilizing three sources to make claims about pronunciation tendencies of non-native speakers of English. The one source I could access, the web site, said nothing about non-native speakers and was instead about borrowings into English. This has made me suspicious about the other two source you cite, which I was unable to access. From the previews I was able to make of these on Google Books, they do not seem to be talking about ESL learners.

My suspicion is that you are utilizing a sort of synthetic thinking (something others have been guilty of when editing that page, including yours truly) that assumes a direct correlation between ESL features and phonological differences, grammatical differences, or even loanword phonology. This would technically be original research. Could you take a second look at your two sources and corroborate whether these sources really do talk about ESL learners or if their utility as sources depends upon this synthetic thinking? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have taken down the section and will repost if/when I am able to find better sources for it. Alázhlis 01:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles translated from Uicipeid (Scottish Gaelic)

I have translated some articles from the Scottish Gaelic Uicipeid. They have different standards for citations than the English Wikipedia and many sources are in Scottish Gaelic. I've tried to add inline citations to English language websites when I translate; however, some articles may have general references only or the sources may not be available in English. In some cases I have left proper nouns (organizations or individuals) in Gaelic if I am unsure of the English equivalent, or which name is used more commonly in English. Also, my Gaelic is not perfect so I may have mistranslated something. Please be aware of this when reviewing my translations and leave a message here if there is an issue. Thanks! Alázhlis (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Elrig

Thank you for translating Elrig! Unfortunately, I can't add more because I have no knowledge of the subject, sorry. --Ermahgerd9 (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Gath (magazine)

Deletion discussion about Gath (magazine)

Hello, Alázhlis,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Gath (magazine) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gath (magazine) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Scorpion293 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dòmhnall MacAmhlaigh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

An Eala Bhàn lyrics

As the poem was written during the WW1, I believe its lyrics (removed in this edit of yours) are in public domain by now, so there is no copyright issue with them on Wikipedia. Are there any other arguments not to have them published in the article? Silmethule (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Silmethule. The poem was ostensibly composed during WWI but I have not been able to find evidence that it was published before copyright would be in effect. Also see WP:NOT a collection of song lyrics is one of the things Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Perhaps one stanza would be sufficient for fair use purposes and in keeping with the article. Catrìona (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Although the poem was written during WW1, were the collected poems of Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna first published in 1969? [1]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Drchriswilliams, I believe so, that's probably what I was looking at when I originally moved them. Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see, that makes sense, thanks for the information. Silmethule (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Gaelic medium education in Scotland

I think it’s a bit harsh to say that « few pupils in primary Gaelic education will continue to use the language as adults », especially since the source you quoted clearly states that « few former GME pupils who did not come from Gaelic-speaking homes are now using their Gaelic FREQUENTLY ». It would seem that many new speakers (i.e. those who don’t come from Gaelic speaking homes) stop using Gaelic actively on a daily basis. But it does not mean that they don’t use it! The same goes for many people who learnt a foreign language in an immersion environment at some stage (Erasmus students for instance). They may not use the language on a daily basis, but that does not mean the learning has been useless and that these new speakers won’t use it anymore in their life. Bit of a quick conclusion in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.199.107 (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from Spanish

Hello Catrìona,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Spanish to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Spanish article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Spanish, using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Spanish. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Spanish article, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby I'd definitely be willing to help out with that project but those articles have already been evaluated, where can I find a list of articles that still need attention? Catrìona (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Catriona: my bad: see he grammasre. I gave you the broader page for context (and in case you speak any other languages or have friends that do), but there is plenty to do in Spanish, and each language is separated into its own list. Are you a native speaker? I have done some of the Spanish but haven't made a formal study of the language let alone the grammar, simply been around it a lot, and could well be missing nuances. I would welcome a review of my work or some help with some of those not yet done. Feel free to ask any questions about this or anything else. Probably best to start with reviewiing unreviewed articles in terms of the project priorities, but as always in wikipedia nothing is compulsory. Ping @Mathglot: for coordination purposes. Elinruby (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! Unfortunately I'm not native, but I am fluent enough for this task. Catrìona (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, and thanks for helping out. I do have a request, though - the {{pass}} or {{fail}} templates don't go in the actual articles themselves, but on the lists at either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review/By language or, ideally, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review. Or you could let either Mathglot or I know directly on either of our user talk: pages. —Cryptic 23:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Mea culpa, insufficiently clear template instructions. Please see your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Catriona, the easiest would be if you just put the {{pass}} or {{pass}} right here on your talk page, and then let one of us know by adding {{ping|Elinruby}} or {{ping|Mathglot}}.
Here are two new ones, feel free to evaluate them, and then just mark them up right here and {{ping}} one of us. Adding @Elinruby and Cryptic:.
  1. A Waterfall in a Rocky Landscape
  2. Aída Olivier
Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

want some more?

Thanks for your help so far. We have a lot of Spanish articles, see what you think of these if you get a chance:

If any of them is just not something you want to do or is just too bad too verify, don't hesitate to say so.... Elinruby (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (History of Scottish Gaelic) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating History of Scottish Gaelic, Catrìona!

Wikipedia editor Onel5969 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice job on that article. Well done.

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Onel5969 TT me 12:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

/e ~ ɛ/ and /o ~ ɔ/ in Scots Gaelic

Hi is there any orthographical way to express these distinctions or is it impossible to distinguish this way? Thanking in advance — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 13:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi [ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ]) I thought I had replied to you earlier but apparently forgot to post. OK, this article has good examples of what spellings produce which phones. Short /e ~ ɛ/ and /o ~ ɔ/ is not contrastive and while the long versions are contrastive, long ɛ: and o: are extremely rare with fewer than a dozen roots that employ them. Catrìona (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Catrìona. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Finchley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Kameny and Matlovich

I'm confused. In this edit, you mention an interview with Time, but the ref you link talks about an interview in The New York Times Magazine. To further complicate matters, earlier in the paragraph our article mentions an interview in the Air Force Times. Can you shed some light on this? Were there three separate interviews? RivertorchFIREWATER 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rivertorch: thanks for bringing my attention to this issue; I've now corrected it. I was distracted by the big Time cover to notice that the letter actually referred to a separate interview. From the Wiki article (although I note the paragraph had no inline citations) I gather that Kameny did an interview with Air Force Times regarding military policy on homosexuals, Matlovich then reached out to him. After this incident he became briefly famous which led to the interview with Time Magazine and also the NY Times Magazine apparently. Catrìona (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I was loath to try and fix it because I just wasn't sure. I may have a book source to use for an additional citation, if I can find it. Thanks for clearing it up! RivertorchFIREWATER 14:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Service Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unilaterally

Given your stated reasoning (in the edit summary) about this revert, I think you should carefully read through the changes in that diff: the version you reverted back to also claims that "extinct" is one of the "levels of andangerment" (in the paragraph starting "UNESCO's Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger categorises 2,473 languages"). We need to decide whether we want to say there are "six levels of endangerment", "five levels of endangerment" (not counting "safe", or not counting "extinct"), or "four levels of endangerment" (counting neither "safe" nor "extinct"). And whichever wording we choose, we should only list the levels once. The article currently lists them twice (counting them differently each time), in the two sentences starting "UNESCO operates with four levels of language endangerment" and "UNESCO's Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger categorises 2,473 languages". - dcljr (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tried again. - dcljr (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Friedrich Wilhelm von Lindeiner-Wildau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sagan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle for Czech Radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilsen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

LGTB advocacy

Thanks for contributing to the criticism of religion article. Your claim definitely needs to be backed up with a/some good references. If you can find reliable sources and document them on the page, it would be helpful. Cheers Shabidoo | Talk 16:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)--

Your GA nomination of Prague uprising

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prague uprising you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of White Shadows -- White Shadows (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick Question

Have you promoted an article to GA status yet? I'm just curious. I'd also like to say that I've been following the edits you've made to Prague uprising and I'm loving the work you've put into this. I'm very confident this is going to pass when it's all said and done.--White Shadows New and improved! 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@White Shadows: No, I have never been a GA reviewer or nominator, this is all new for me. Thanks for the reassurance. By the way you have the coolest username that I've encountered so far. Catrìona (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment! I'm happy to be the first person to review one of your articles for a GA. You've done a fantastic job so far and I have to say, you're quite skillful when it comes to obtaining Czech-related sources. Having been to Prague once about 14 years ago, it's awesome seeing folks who are eager to improve articles about the history of the city.--White Shadows New and improved! 03:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prague uprising

The article Prague uprising you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prague uprising for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of White Shadows -- White Shadows (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@White Shadows: Thanks so much for your helpful feedback, it really helped me improve the article. Catrìona (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem. It was a pleasure reviewing this article! Let me know if you'd ever like to take this article to a higher level (such as ACR or eventually FAC). I'd be more than happy to help you get there. Congrats again on the GA!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 01:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener

Hi, welcome to DYK reviewing! Just a note that the template thread should be in chronological order. Please put your final approval tick at the bottom of the nomination, not at the top. If the hook reference can be verified, it's a green tick; if the hook ref is offline or foreign-language, it's a gray tick. Also, please don't give the final tick until all criteria are met, including the QPQ. We have a bot that automatically moves templates that have an approval tick to the Approved page, so if it's not yet approved, it will be in the wrong place and may confuse prep promoters like myself. If you have any questions about the review process, please drop me a note on my talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jan Žižka partisan brigade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partisan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wing leaders has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wing leaders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping is not implemented in Uiclair.

I replied, but cannot yet ping you from there. Sorry! Kibi78704 (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Review

Thank you for liking Template:Did you know nominations/Kelly M. Quintanilla, - we'll need an icon for further processing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Manufacture of Bf 109 wings at Flossenbürg concentration camp.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Bratislava Working Group

On 3 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bratislava Working Group, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an illegal Jewish organization in an Axis puppet state proposed an ambitious scheme to bribe Heinrich Himmler into halting the systematic extermination of European Jews? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bratislava Working Group. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bratislava Working Group), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Drancy internment camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Western Allies and Transit camp
Warsaw concentration camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Greek

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Prague uprising

Hello! Your submission of Prague uprising at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! › Mortee talk 14:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

PS - many congratulations on your Good Article. It's an impressive piece of work. › Mortee talk 14:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Who Are You, Leon Burger?

Hello, Catrìona. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Who Are You, Leon Burger?, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: First, thanks for reviewing all of my new pages, splits and redirects. I did not create this article, but simply split it from Tuvia Friling. It's clearly unacceptable in its current form and, although it might pass GNG, I have no interest in improving it or opposing the deletion. Catrìona (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Use of thanking

I don't think that thanking me for my edit on the Molders FAR is helpful. I do not intend to comment further on the page. Please respect my right to withdraw from the matter.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: The thank was genuine appreciation for your clarification of the effect of the Arbcom case on the content dispute, not some nefarious attempt to involve you in the FAR proceedings. Regards, Catrìona (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bratislava Working Group

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bratislava Working Group you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles for creation comments

Thanks for pitching in to review drafts at Articles for creation. Supplementing the boilerplate declines with custom comments is encouraged, but I noticed a couple of your comments steer submitters in the wrong direction.

  • On Draft:Olivier Vadrot you wrote Also, Wikipedia is not a CV. Non-notable works should not be listed.. It's true that Wikipedia is not the place to post one's resume, but MOS:WORKS encourages complete lists of works for artists and specifically says, "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles."
  • On Draft:Kenneth Calhoun you wrote Coverage of the subject's works do not grant notability to the author unless there is significant coverage of the author himself. Coverage of the subject's works in the form of multiple independent reviews is one of the primary ways of demonstrating the notability of an author. The reviews need not contain significant biographical information (although in this case reviews are available that do). The submitter should be citing more coverage of the subject's works, not less.

I agree that the declined drafts need work, but please nudge the submitters in the right direction. Otherwise they tend to flail around making things worse and clogging up AfC. Including in your comments a link to the relevant policy or guideline (if different from those in the boilerplate decline) can help them learn our system. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Thanks for the feedback. I agree what I said to the first person was misleading. There seem to be a lot of AfC submissions which are somewhat promotional and somewhat reminiscent of a resume/CV, and I'm not really sure what to say to nudge the person in the right direction. As for the second one, it seems that I was misunderstanding WP:NOTINHERITED. I won't make the same mistake again! Catrìona (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ntate Daniel Kgwadi

Hi Catrìona

Thanks for the comments on the draft

I have improved the citations and has address the controversies in a hopefully acceptable encyclopedic tone.

Regards

Barry Ne (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Catriona

I have corrected the grammar

Barry Ne (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've mainspaced it. The article still needs copy editing, though. Catrìona (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland

Hello! Your submission of The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 12:47:28, 8 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Pokereth


Regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pakistan_Women_Writers_Forum

Could you please help me understand why this article reads like an advertisement and not an encyclopedia entry? While I agree that this was true of earlier drafts which were written by a non-native English speaker, I have completely re-written the article and feel like it is written from a neutral point of view. Could you give me specific suggestions on what to change or delete to get it in alignment with Wikipedia standards?

Thank you for your help. Pokereth (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pokereth: I've left a more detailed comment on the article. Catrìona (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Prague uprising

On 10 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prague uprising, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Russian Liberation Army defected for the second time when it turned against Nazi Germany in the Prague uprising on 6 May 1945? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prague uprising. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Prague uprising), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Siegfried Lederer.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 03:01:41, 8 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Zhaofeng-shu33


Hi Catrìona

Thanks for the comments on the draft Draft:ACE (alternating conditional expectations). You said "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide". I am confused and do not know how to revise the article. Can you give me further suggestions? Thank you very much.

Zhaofeng-shu33 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zhaofeng-shu33: It looks like another user has cleaned up your draft and promoted it. I encourage you to keep working on the issues that were addressed by the other reviewer, and if you have any questions they can probably answer them better than I could—I'm very new to Articles for Creation. Catrìona (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: Thanks for your reply. I will gradually improve the article.

Murder of the family of Robert Einstein

Thank you for moving the article and creating a DYK for it. I added another alternative suggestion to it. I also noticed that you linked Padule di Fucecchio to the Italian Wikipedia article. I don't speak Italian but English language sources do exist for the massacre. It surprises me that there isn't an article yet, given that it is, according to this source, "one of Italy's worst wartime atrocities". Other English language sources exist as well, like this article by the Telegraph, and an official announcement by the Italian Government. Turismond (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Turismond: Thanks for your work on the article and your ALT hook. I don't have time to write a full article on the massacre, but I might create a stub of it just for this DYK. Catrìona (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I have started Draft:Padule di Fucecchio massacre. Turismond (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wallenberg page

Why did you remove songs added to the page? Emesz (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Emesz: On your talk page, I told you that YouTube was not a reliable source. That's why I reverted your edit. Catrìona (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see your message. YouTube not a reliable source for what/in what way? How do you suggest referencing them?

The songs on YouTube (or anywhere) are their reference. They obviously exist. By the way, the song writer/singer is a friend of the Wallenberg family and one song, Louise and Mary, was written for two of Wallenbeg's nieces. Emesz (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A secondary source would establish that the songs are important enough and relevant enough to be included in the article without undue weight or intricate detail. Catrìona (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You are saying that based on Wikipedia rules songs. movies, testimonies, how-to and science explanations, etc. on YouTube, Vimeo, etc. which are not reviewed by external source(s) substantiated on the same page can't appear in a Wikipedia reference - regardless of quality? This is a very important point for anyone editing Wikipedia pages. Suggest carefully considering the implications. Huge number of pages would need automated or manual edits to remove YouTube links not substantiated in the same page by an external reference. By the way, independent of the issue suggest you listen to the songs. ...Emesz (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that reference to a song, image and similar is very different than justifying a historical, political, etc. point based on a possibly unreliable source on YouTube etc. Also reference to a song, etc. on Internet is not necessarily an endorsement for its quality - it merely indicates its existence. I'd venture to say that an article in a newspaper/video channel, even as well known as the NY Times, Fox News, CNN, Wall St Journal, the old Soviet Pravda... etc., is not necessarily noteworthy or even factual - but may well be politically or otherwise biased, or simply in error.Emesz (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I've read on the reliable sources noticeboard, a YouTube video from the CNN official channel would be evaluated the same way that a CNN article would (a generally reliable secondary source). But any 3rd grader could write a song about Wallenberg and post it to YouTube—the fact that someone has done so does not merit inclusion if it has not been covered by independent, secondary sources. Catrìona (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There are some talented 3rd graders. Mozart composed many pieced by that age. :-)

More to the point, this is an important principle independent of the Wallenberg page. For example I recently saw two excellent explanations about "Quaternions" involving 3 distinct imaginary numbers i, j and k which have important applications in physics. [1] and [2]. I have no idea who the first presenter is or if his presentation is referenced anywhere. Still, based on understanding the math and common sense I'd surely use the video as a reference in an article on the topic. The second reference is by a very bright postdoctoral physics student at Cambridge U. I don't know if her presentation is reviewed anywhere, but would certainly assume she is worth quoting solely because of the quality of the presentation and the fact that she was accepted to be at Cambridge.

How can we have the issue arbitrated in order to establish the principle for the general good?

Emesz (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I frequently watch CNN and Fox News. Neither is fully reliable since unfortunately they are both highly politically/point of view motivated. As are some or many of the major newspapers theese days. Emesz (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the Wallenberg article is currently under review, you could post a comment to the article reassessment page. Perhaps other editors will have an opinion. Catrìona (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue is not Wallenberg specific, but is of general interest. What is the mechanism for a way to have a general resolution to the issue? Emesz (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You might try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Catrìona (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of "return unwanted" concentration camp prisoners

Hi, I'm Meatsgains. Catrìona, thanks for creating List of "return unwanted" concentration camp prisoners!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains(talk) 22:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

List of "return unwanted" concentration camp prisoners

Thank you for editing my edit.

Two subtleties:

Probably not correct to state that the Working Group was ESPECIALLY focused on rescuing Slovak Jews, although their activism certainly started with that focus. They were very active warning the world about the immense tragedy and asking for help, trying to save much of European Jewry with the Europa Plan, asked for bombing a rail tunnel leading to Auschwitz and for bombing the crematoria, warned Hungarian Jewry of its imminent destruction in 1944 and distributing the Auschwitz Report to warn Jews and others in general.

Leadership of the group is unnecessarily disputed. Many feel Gisi Fleischmann was the leader and the same for Rabbi Weissmandl. Among Jews the choice depends mostly on how/if observant is someone. This unfortunate dichotomy is divisive and reflected in books, articles, documentaries. The group was very diverse from ultra-observant to secular and Communist. They worked in unusual harmony, which can be attributed to Mrs. Fleischmann's personality. She was well connected with established Jewish organizations like Joint, WIZO, etc and Rabbi Weissmandl with the observant world internationally. She was more of an administrator and he the brilliant idea person of the group.

They were both great people and much is owed to them.

Recommend writing for poor Gisi "A leader", not to diminish her stature but out of great respect and gratitude to both of them. To keep their memory together in harmony vs. separating them.Emesz (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Since I wrote the article and shepherded it through the GA process, I researched the subject extensively and thus I'm convinced that the phrasing in the list article is an adequate summary of the Working Group's activities. Yehuda Bauer, probably the highest calibre historian who has written about the Working Group, wrote that "According to all the documentation we have, especially the book Weissmandel wrote after the war, testimonies by Steiner, Kovdfc, and Neumann, and Fleischmann's letters, it is clear that Fleischmann headed the Working Group." Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust p. 178. She was not involved in the spring 1944 activities because she was under arrest at the time (Bauer 182). Catrìona (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have also extensively researched the subject for many years. My understanding of the subject is as I wrote, especially that after the Spring 1942 ransom negotiations the Working Group tried to save as many Jews as possible at least in Europe anywhere. Don't know if they they were aware the danger to Jews in North Africa.

The Europa Plan activities were in late 1942 while Gisi Fleischman was not arrested. The same for preparation and dissemination of the Auschwitz Report around April 1944. Despite what Bauer may state in his work per Yad Vashem she was arrested on October 15, 1944 not during the Spring ....[3][4]

Thus as The Leader, Co-Leader or member of the group she was certainly involved in matters relating to dissemination of the Auschwitz Report.

Bauer is knowledgeable, but that is not sufficient. In some cases he is highly point of view (vs. cold facts) driven and in such cases less than reliable, in my humble view. Some or many others may not agree. I will not elaborate.

I saw in documentary "Among Blind Fools" Andrew Steiner explaining that it was Rabbi Weissmandl who initiated the Spring 1942 negotiations to ransom Slovak Jewry and instructed Steiner on exactly how to behave when in Wisliceny's office. As far as I know the Europe Plan initiative was Rabbi Weissmand's possibly jointly with Rabbi Fischer. The idea that it is possible to negotiate with the Nazis to save large number of lives was Rabbi Weissmandl's.

Of course if you have a reference where as you write Rabbi Weissmandl states that Gisi Fleischmann was the only head of the group then I'd put all other considerations aside and go by what Rabbi Weissmandl writes. I'd do the same if there is anything of this sort written by Gisi Fleischmann.

Having written all this, the formal leadership issue is less important (to me), but suggest emphasizing that the Working Group's strategy was at least Europe-wide after the early 1942 Slovak focus. This what makes their activism especially great.Emesz (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

With due respect, Bauer's book has more than 600 citations on Google Scholar.[2] Excerpt of a review: "Rethinking the Holocaust is not only a book on Holocaust history but also a meditation on the writing and implications of this history by one of its most influential interpreters, Yehuda Bauer." If you are able to find another source which is as respected as that one, I will reconsider my position. According to Bauer, she was arrested in May 1944, released at some point, and arrested again in October after the Germans invaded Slovakia. Yes, it's true that the Europa Plan aimed to rescue all European Jews, but historians are unanimous and most contemporaries (even a majority of the Working Group) agreed that this was hopeless from the start. The Working Group did not save any Jews who were not Slovak Jews, but they may have helped to save some Slovak Jews. So, I think it's best not to overemphasize the scope and importance of the later negotiations. Catrìona (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Thank you.

You may be interested in some of what Andre Steiner says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V01sbMXNl6w

Yes, Bauer is widely cited and as far as know also received the Israel Prize. Still, anything Bauer or any historian states about what could have happened (e.g. with the Europa Plan) is not fact based history, but truth seeking or otherwise motivated speculation. I learned that one must know the personality of historians, including biases and affiliations, and know what to filter out etc.

Suppose Gisi Fleischmann was arrested per Bauer in May 1944. The Auschwitz Report was disseminated earlier, in April!

"The Working Group did not save any Jews who were not Slovak Jews". That is incorrect.

(a) The Auschwitz Report reached with immense delay Mantello in Switzerland who immediately publicized it. It had great impact in Switzerland with very loud echo world-wide. Was one of the main reasons why the transports from Hungary stopped after Horthy was threatened by free world leaders...Thus many Jews were saved outside of Slovakia as a result of the Working Group distributing the report.

(b) Yad Vashem states that Kastner rescued large number of Jews by negotiation. For purpose of tis note suppose it is so. He learned the "invention" of negotiating with the Nazis from the Working Group (Rabbi Weissmandl) and he and others in Budapest were also advised by the Working Group (probably Rabbi Weissmandl) to trust Wisliceny in negotiations. Thus, according to this, many Jews outside Slovakia were rescued due to the Working Group. They didn't have to stand by the departing transports in Hungary to save Jews....

"Europa Plan aimed to rescue all European Jews, but historians are unanimous and most contemporaries (even a majority of the Working Group) agreed that this was hopeless from the start" Certainly not correct. Historians are not unanimous. Also, the Working Group would not have asked Jewish organizations in the free world for the large down payment if they felt the plan was hopeless. Any statement about the likelihood of the plan succeeding or being hopeless is mere speculation since the down payment was not made and no one can tell with certainty (one way or the other) if the Nazis would have adhered to the ransom condition.

They kept their word with he Kastner train, but further ransom was needed later to release the people from Bergen-Belsen. According to the above link of Andre Steiner (found on Yad Vashem Web site http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/communities/bratislava/working_group.asp) the Nazis kept their word regarding release of 1,000 children from Teresienstadt.... It is a fallacy to assume that the evil Nazis would by definition never keep an agreement.

The only thing we know for certain is that the free world organizations were not willing to risk the down payment. We also know that, in contrast to the Europa Plan, significantly more money was risked for the Kastner train. My impression is that some of those historians who claim the Europa Plan had no chance of success are consciously or subconsciously apologists for the organizations who could have helped, but did not. Noteworthy that even the Spring 1942 ransom money was obtained with great difficulty after Rabbi Weissmandl had to threaten the Budapest Orthodox community with meeting in the "courts above" in the after-life. Of course there are historians who claim the Spring 1942 negotiations were useless - had no impact. There are, as usual, many opinions. Emesz (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a coincidence that a Czech documentary about Rabbi Weissmandl and the Working Group is titled "Among Blind Fools" (referring to free world Jewish leaders during the Holocaust).

Rabbi Weissmandl wrote that after the war those who did nothing (or worse) to save the Jews of Europe will rewrite history. How right he was (again) ... Emesz (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure that further discussion on this topic is going to be helpful. You are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of accepted Wikipedia consensus about reliable sources and which sources should take precedent in an article. I suggest you read Primary and Reliable sources and Identifying reliable sources. Catrìona (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

Thank for picking up Parkala Massacre. I will work on the suggestions. Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde problem

I don't know the solution myself, but you did not get an answer to your help desk question. Have you found help?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thanks for your comment. I ended up creating a new wikidata item for the escape and linking the new wikidata item with both participants. This doesn't really help with interwiki linking, but it's at least an OK solution for now. Catrìona (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess if no one objects then it's okay.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlskQDR8-bY
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBTUVg91bao
  3. ^ http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/1944/fischer.asp
  4. ^ http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/communities/bratislava/working_group_activists.asp

Skycoin page

Hi Catriona,

Regarding your rejection of the Skycoin page, I'd like to better understand your comment below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skycoin

"should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject"

The page does refer to a wide range of independent, reliable, published sources including Forbes, Reuters, The United Nations, CNBC, Bloomberg, Nasdaq, MIT and the BBC.

There is only one single link to material produced by the creator of the subject, and this link is simply a technical description.

Also, I don't believe the article reads like an advertisement since it is written from a neutral point of view and includes several criticisms of the subject.

Could you provide some more information on how you arrived at your decision? How many more independent/reliable/published references would be needed in addition to the 32 already provided? If I simply remove the one link to the material produced by the creator of the subject, will that be sufficient?

Thanks!

PD. Peak Debt (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Peak Debt: One issue is that the "Controversy" section reads as if you are trying to rebut the criticisms of the company. If you would like a second opinion on the review, feel free to submit it to AfC again. Catrìona (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi Catrìona, I have removed the rebuttal of the criticisms from the "Controversy" section, and also removed the reference link to material produced by the creator of the subject, and resubmitted the page for review. Does this mean it goes back into the queue for another few months before somebody can review it again? Peak Debt (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Peak Debt: The oldest articles in the queue are 7 weeks old, but articles are reviewed in random order, so on average it will take about a month. Unfortunately, AfC is constantly backlogged with lots of spam. Catrìona (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Boris Rotman

Please clarify the need for footnotes in the Draft. At present, the Draft has 10 footnotes. Thank you.Autoctono~enwiki 22:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Parham v. J.R.

I think consensus is that all US Supreme court decisions are notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: Could you please point me to the page that says that? There is nothing about court decisions in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines and I could not find any essays on the subject, either. Catrìona (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Every afd discussion about one there has ever been in the last 11 years, which ,admittedly, have been very few because almost nobody has ever nominated one. If you have doubts, nominate it. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Krishnamacharya_Healing_and_Yoga_Foundation

I am trying to know what are the expectations precisely and how can I improve this article in a Neutral point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishnamacharya_Healing_and_Yoga_Foundation Either you (or point me to the resource) can seek help and point the sections? Vnarsimhan (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Shentalinsky

Thanking for editing the Shentalinsky article. Please look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shentalinsky_District&type=revision&diff=854859874&oldid=785036041 Spasibo YevgeniL (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: DYK review

I don't know if you're handling this or it is Dr Jones Jr, who has not edited since creating this article. In any case, I hope my admittedly tough review does not discourage you or the author from making the needed improvements so it can be featured as a DYK. -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Nazi war crimes in Italy

I would appreciate if you could have a look at Draft:Nazi war crimes in Italy. Turismond (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke photo

Hello,

I tried to carry out your excellent suggestion for a clearer photo of Boelcke, but could not straighten out the wiki coding involved. If you could return and dub in the photo you suggested, it would be most welcome.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: No problem. I've overwritten the existing Commons file and reverted the local Wikipedia copy to a different version that's not on Commons. Catrìona (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sorley MacLean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Les Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/German war crimes in Italy during World War II

Thanks for nominating German war crimes in Italy during World War II for DYK. I read your suggestion a few days a go but, frankly, after reading through Template talk:Did you know (and discovering some really interesting articles in the process) I found the whole process far to bureaucratic to appeal to me. As far as the two hooks go both are a little ambiguous. The first one could be amended with the word "soldier" or "military personnel" (it wasn't German tourists with their beach towels after all), the second one is probably not quite correct as, according to Italian Campaign (World War II), 152,940 Italian civilians died during the war, far more than the 22,000. A fair share of those would have been killed through causes directly related to German activities (Civilian casualties of German bombing raids, food & medicine shortages in the occupied areas, e.t.c.) that weren't classified as war crimes. If I can think of a good hook I will put it up as a suggestion on the nomination page. Turismond (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

German Resistance categories

You tagged Category:Protestants in the German Resistance‎ and Category:Roman Catholics in the German Resistance for speedy renaming but they are not (or not anymore) listed at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your contribution to Draft:Kanishk Sajnani

Hi, Your changed was reversed in order to bring back the "Review Waiting" column - back to the end of the article. Your comment removal wasn't intended. Now, you seem to have reverted the draft back to your own revision, undoing 3 different changes made during the period.It would indeed be a discomfort making back those changes. Requesting you to act more wisely from now onwards. Thank You. 122.170.160.64 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Boelcke-Kaserne concentration camp

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boelcke-Kaserne concentration camp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boelcke-Kaserne concentration camp

The article Boelcke-Kaserne concentration camp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Boelcke-Kaserne concentration camp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting guidance and help

Greetings @ Buidhe

Frankly after latest AfC review of the Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala since I am not a native English language speaker, Idk whether I can change predicament of the draft with my limited linguistic skills.

Requesting guidance and help

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi bookku, I don't think the issue with the draft is the prose rather its due to lack of encyclopedic language as it reads as an essay taking the point of view of ex-muslim activists. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buidhe/Archive_1&oldid=1139157019"