Open main menu



Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

You've been here long enough to know this. No edit on Wikipedia, with the exception of BLP-violations and pro=pedophilia, are immune from having to be discussed. WP:V does not require that every piece of information be verfied, it requires that every piece of information be verifiable. The information you removed was certainly verifiable, the question now id" should it be in the article. That requires discussion, and you are required to start that discussion when asked to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: reverting an unsourced IP addition is not a bold edit. Or should we talk which came first, the egg or the chicken? Besides being unsourced, it doesn't fit the lead, in my opinion, because the other descriptions are mostly policies like opposition to immigration, protectionism, anti-globalization whereas Nazism is an ideology and on a whole different level (although right-wing populism is also an ideology). --Pudeo (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
In what way does it being made by an IP have any relevance? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to revert myself on that edit until I can take a closer (and more clear-eyed) look at it tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Alright. I don't even feel that strongly about it, I just think it comes as off. And no problem about the ANI thread, admittedly messing up with the font size would be a pretty clever way to troll people, if you wanted to cause disruption. --Pudeo (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Just FYI, you were correct. Since there's no mention of Nazism or nao-Nazism in the rest of the article, it should not be in the lede. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page unreadableEdit

Is something wrong with your talk page? he print appears to be completely unreadable. Please respond here because I will not be able to read any response you pst here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Puedo, regarding archives - provided you keep your archive(s) intact and just cut and paste from your main talk page there would be little strength to any argument you were trying to hide anything; leaving a archive box right at the top of your page would also make it very clear that old talks can be found. Your page isn't so large to be "disruptive", but it could be difficult for some editors to use if they are on mobile browsers, etc. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 16:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Alright, I've done my first archive ever. I just found it somewhat amusing to have some embarassing talk page messages from 2006 visible and I guess I took some pride in never having removed any criticism or warnings from my talk page, given how sensitive some people are with their talk pages. But it's true 270 000 bytes is quite massive so it's better for others. --Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and best wishes! — xaosflux Talk 18:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI postEdit

Hi, Just in reply to your post at ANI, I'm a bit startled to see you called me a "SPA for Australian military history" (do multiple FAs on topics with no relationship at all with Australian military history count for nothing?) and compared me to someone who you acknowledge uses Holocaust denial language. You're entirely welcome to take a different view to me on whether the editor should remain active on Wikipedia, but that kind of insult is really uncalled for. I'd suggest that you avoid the personal abuse in future, and I'd be grateful if you could apologise. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I can sincerely apologize to you, and I do so: sorry for that. That wasn't needed for the point I was making. Mind you, the real reason I jabbed like that was mostly my annoyance from the ArbCom case. You have written many detailed articles about Australian military history, which I applaud you for, but you were far too defensive to the conduct of KEC in the evidence section. How come, someone who writes articles about detailed military history, not protest removal of "intricate detail" from German military articles? Certainly I don't expect any "MilHist project camaraderie" (btw - although I was called a MilHist 'regular' a couple of times, I've never done anything in the project except join it a decade ago), but still it irked me to see that from an experienced editor in the field. Of course I shouldn't carry on grievances like that, and that's why I apologize. --Pudeo (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Regarding the ArbCom case, I largely agree with KEC's edits, though I think they went over the top at times and should have made more use of centralised discussions. Many of the biography articles of German war heroes are hagiographies, which present their subjects without context and are based in a rather disreputable literature which exaggerates the achievements of the German military while ignoring its central role in the Nazi regime and its crimes. The articles on World War II people developed by editors such as Peacemaker67 and Ian Rose are much better models IMO: they're too the point and place their subjects in proper context. There can be a tendency among people interested in military history (and Wikipedia editors in particular, I suspect) to focus on purely military details and loose sight of the bigger picture on the grounds that it's somehow 'political'. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


This is WP:VOTESTACKING. Please don't do it again. - MrX 🖋 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: How come? I've never interacted with any of them, I don't know their opinions. If K.e.coffman's page is humour like you say, they'll probably say they're not bothered by the page and I can withdraw it. Besides, it's courtesy to let editors know about a deletion discuss of a page that they are the contents of. --Pudeo (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You pinged them and posted a non-neutral message because you hope they will vote with you. You can't do that.- MrX 🖋 18:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see it as a non-neutral message in any way, to be honest. I asked a neutral question. If they think it's humour, my argument is void. But I understand the concern, obviously the closing admin will have to take into account the fact opinions were asked from the people who the page is about, if they decide to respond. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive editsEdit

Yes, offering free information is never constructive. Better to offer garbage content in sub-professional English like almost everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4b00:7ab:15de:358c:bf9b:59aa (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closedEdit

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
  2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
  4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
  5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations openEdit

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Brazilian military dictatorshipEdit

I recommend that you read the talk page for the portuguese article for the Brazilian military dictatorship article. There is a FAQ there that might be of interest. Use Google translater if you will.

But i'll translate for you the first part:

"Why this article was published as Fifth Brazilian Republic is classified as a dictatorship?"

Answer: "It is an academic consensus that this period was a dictatorship. Basic characteristics of a democracy, such as the right to oppose the government, did not exist. Any political dissident was arrested and tortured, typical characteristics of a dictatorship. All this was accentuated by the institution of the AI-5, which gave the president the power to suspend for 10 years the political rights of any citizen and to dissolve federal, state and municipal elective mandates."

All the sources in the article, both articles really, name that regime a dictatorship. If the sources say that, then it is. WP:V: all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.

Hope this is clear now. If you want to change it, use the article's talk page. But engage in WP:POINT. Coltsfan (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: the 1993 (someone's been going through the archives!) New York Times article has him saying he's favouring a dictatorship, but the others sources don't mention it. US News "He is a far-right candidate representing a certain segment of the electorate who favor a return to a military government." You realize we need pretty good sources for saying someone supports dictatorship?
Current name of the article is Brazilian military government. And the military rule had more authoritarian periods than others. It was an authoritarian junta. Whether to call it a dictatorship is a further POV question. For instance, when Fidel Castro died there was an extensive debate here whether he should be called a dictator (Cuban regime killed atleast 4000 dissidents, offer no political rights for non-party members etc.) That's the deal. You might want to propose moving the article if you think there are bullet-proof sources for unequivocally calling it a dictatorship. --Pudeo (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's basicly a Duck test. If it looks like a dictatorship, swims like a dictatorship, and quacks like a dictatorship, then it probably is a dictatorship. Most of the academic, historical and jornalistic sources name that government a dictatorship, simply because it fells under the characteristics of a typical dictatorship. According to the sources, there was no real democracy, the president had the power to overrule both the legislative and judicial branches and there was only one oposition party, the Brazilian Democratic Movement, that was sanctioned by the government but had no real power (it's not uncomon for dictatorships to have puppet oposition parties to give an idea of democracy. North Korea and Syria do that, for instance). And Bolsonaro's support for the 1964-85 dictatorship is also not even in question: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.

The problem is definently not the lack of sources (Reuters, The New York Times, DW, Channel News Asia, The Washington Post, US News, etc...).

There are sources in portuguese, if you can read them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. If you want, i can also list books here.

I'll propose the change in the name of the other article, after the election cycle ends over there in Brazil. But, according to the sources at hand, and plenty more to choose from, that government was a military dictatorship. At least among historians and scholars (and even journalist), there is no debate. It supressed personal freedoms, non authorized oposition was persecuted, dissidents were tortured, exiled or killed and the presidents had full power and ruled above the law.

PS: Brazil had two juntas during the 1964-1985 period, true. But, all the 5 generals that ruled, ruled alone. Again, if you want more sources, i can provide'm. Coltsfan (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commencedEdit

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Have your say!Edit

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Soviet partisans in FinlandEdit

 On 12 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Soviet partisans in Finland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the attacks on civilian villages by Soviet partisans in Finland were a suppressed topic until the 1990s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Soviet partisans in Finland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Soviet partisans in Finland), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Pudeo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awardsEdit

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awardsEdit

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

POV Tag at Abortion and Mental HealthEdit

Hi. You recently reverted an edit[1] at the Abortion and Mental Health article. Please consider adding more regarding your reasoning on the talk page where there is an active discussion regarding the question of whether there are POV problems with this article. I feel comments from more editors would be helpful.––Saranoon (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Saranoon: No, sorry, I don't think I'll do that since it looks like to be a waste of time since you are dealing with well-connected editors who are entrenched to oppose the source on ideological grounds. There's no compromise in sight, so it's useless to contribute in my opinion, and that would be time-consuming. You could try WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN noticeboards, but chances are you would be piled on by watchdogs, despite having a strong case for the inclusion of this strong source. --Pudeo (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Well, those well connected editors have, after threats by MastCell to have me banned for putting a POV tag on the article, have placed me under a 3 month ban[2] against editing anything to do with abortion. I had thought that your voice in support of the POV notice and giving some weight to good sources would have helped to demonstrate that their "consensus" is not as complete as they claim and that other editors do have a right to follow policy in regard to inclusion of other sources. Please reconsider at some future date. Your voice can surely make a difference.–Saranoon (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
This page is on my watchlist. Your post here brought this matter to my attention, not any backchannel communication. Jehochman Talk 05:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Good oneEdit

Irrespective of whether I agree with your stand at Enterprisey's RfA or not, I love a good discussion; and I came here to say that I appreciate frank views and I appreciate great conversations. And you've started quite a good one. I also appreciate the way you've been responding. So, in my opinion, well done. If there's anything you might need my assistance in, in the future, don't hesitate to ask. Warmly, Lourdes 02:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: thanks. I remember when I was studying German in secondary school, my teacher asked "why do you always have to be the contrarian?" in class. So I guess it's a trait, but I don't participate in discussions just to stir things up or to troll, I think it's reasonable to oppose on the grounds that someone's "CV" is brilliant with some technical details but there is no record of things I consider most important. Sometimes it can definitely be healthy to question things, even if it costs you precious "reputation points". If I need assistance, will do! --Pudeo (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2019
Unlike Lourdes, I do not consider it to be a good or healthy discussion, and more precisely to be an excessive and unnecessary stain on a serious RfA that is certainly destined to pass. There is a distinct difference between discussion and just stirring things up or to troll. Perhaps you could still find the good grace to understand that such voting is what puts people off from running for adminship and reconsider your vote before the RfA closes. You would gain reputation ppoinnts for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
As another voter on this RfA, I have to say I agree with Kudpung re: the difference between substantive discussions and stirring things up, and I think you should reconsider your vote. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. RfAs can be stressful if people go around digging all the things you did years ago to find every flaw, but I don't think it should be a big deal to politely disagree with the nom. --Pudeo (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

A year ago ...
... you were recipient
no. 1836 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Remind you of anyone?Edit

User: Ratio Cantina. (Space-free in the original, of course.) Qwirkle (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Right...? That army code word or CAPTCHA stuff. But no en-wiki or global edits. --Pudeo (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Anthony J. HilderEdit

Hi Pudeo, is it possible please that you could keep an eye on the Anthony J. Hilder page as I am concerned about some recent edits. Well, not so much concerned about them as such at this stage, but more what may happen later. The article is up for Deletion discussion. I have been a major contributor to the article. I have expanded others such as Deane Waretini and Lou Dorren etc and I admit with the Hilder one I did get carried away on it and piled too much stuff in it. Fair enough, it should be trimmed to a better size and have content best suited to Wikipedia guidelines. Anyway, I sense something strange about the arrival of a recent editor. I was just wondering if you could please keep an eye on it just to make sure not massive chunks of content are taken out that may make it look flimsy if you get my drift. Thanks
Karl Twist (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

Please refrain from hounding MjolnirPants, as you appear to have been doing for the last few months.[3][4][5][6] It is generally considered very inappropriate to repeatedly show up at ANI every time an editor you have disputed with is mentioned there to request that they be blocked. If you think he is uncivil, then you can just ignore him; showing up every time his name comes up at ANI to support sanctions against him implies you are not concerned about his civility (if he was really uncivil enough that you don't enjoy interacting with him, why would you seek him out?). Please just leave him alone and write articles. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone had to act on it, even when it meant I had to scrutinize diffs. I'm sorry it turned out this way, but it was also possile to dial down the "fuck off"s after the first ANI thread. I really dislike the negativity at ANI so I certainly didn't have fun, but I think it resulted in Wikipedia being a better place because no one should be abused like that. In the October 2018 thread there were plenty of people who were directed obscenities at who agreed with me, but just didn't have the guts themselves to open an ANI thread because it's not a nice environment and takes a thick skin. I don't mind getting my hands dirty. --Pudeo (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I recommend taking ANI off your watchlist, and only show up there if your name is mentioned. You'll be much happier that way. Jehochman Talk 21:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman: I don't watchlist it, I just visit and see from the contents table if there's anything interesting usually. But yes, I do plan on taking a long vacation from dramaboards (unless this one turns into RFAR, I suppose). BTW I remember and respect you from your participation in the DangerousPanda ArbCom case which was mostly about civility too. He refused my block appeal back in the day by calling me a liar and then attacked the admin who rightly unblocked me. Pudeo (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
But you didn't just check in on occasion: every time MPants found himself at ANI (thanks, invariably, to a sockpuppet trolling him) you jumped in and proposed restrictions, without regard to the obvious fact that the threads were opened by trolls for the specific purpose of harassing him, and in the latest instance you explicitly opposed closing the thread to allow everyone to move on with their lives. That's really not cool. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I find it unseemly to have votes for sanctions. I recommend not proposing sanctions. Instead, say what’s wrong and ask that it be stopped. Whatever unlucky admin decides to close the thread will then have to figure out what if anything is needed to stop the negative behavior. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Schio massacreEdit

 On 2 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schio massacre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Italian Communist Party blamed Trotskyite agents for carrying out the Schio massacre, which led to an Allied military court trial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schio massacre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Schio massacre), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope we can resolve thisEdit

For the Soviet Union in World War II I just redid it so it it said the number what the Russian government puts it at

And for the excess mortality under Joseph Stalin for the older edit that was when I was really starting out and had no idea what I was doing and for the other one it was redid because I made a mistake with it Jack90s15 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: I am usually very receptive to new editors and don't mind if you don't handle everything right at first, but in this case I think you have caused a bit of a mess with not attributing sources right and it has happened in several articles. I'll wait for comments by others first. --Pudeo (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I explained with the articles you showed what happened with them and I was recommended to join the WikiProject Military history and to ask for help to on my talk page so that is what I am going to doJack90s15 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Could I borrow your eyeballs on something?Edit

I recently submitted an SPI on one of the frequent offenders, which was almost directly shot down. I am reasonably certain that investigation would “find the guilty bastard guilty”, as me old First Sergeant used to say, but I am very uncomfortable with dumping the evidence into a public space. We might as well be giving them instructions on how to sock better, you ask me... Some time late next week or the week after, would you mind looking at an email on this, or could you recommend someone? Qwirkle (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Sure, my email is enabled. I believe the issue you are referring to has been discussed elsewhere with inconclusive results (the opinion of editors I trust the most with catching sockpuppets think it's very suspicious, but they also find some things that would suggest they are not necessarily the same person). --Pudeo (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Infobox Finnish municipalityEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infobox Finnish municipality. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Case requestEdit

This is a courtesy notification that the RexxS Bureaucrat Chat case request has been declined by the committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and apologies. --Pudeo (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Patriotic People's Movement (Finland) logo.svgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Patriotic People's Movement (Finland) logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Fact checking SashiRollsEdit

I feel really frustrated to have my work at all discredited by the suggestion that I may be a sock. Can I ask you to look at my history to hopefully take back the accusation? I think you can see my editing/talk page comments were unskilled at first and improved over time. But the explanation for my experience with detective work is that after I made an edit to WP:Xennials I was confronted by what I found to be an extremely abusive personality, who I think was the first editor I ever interacted with on Wikipedia. (DynaGirl).[7] I mostly sent my research by email, but you can see here how involved the work was from another editor's comments [8]. Most of the work was investigating what I had thought were her socks on the Xennials article and other generations articles. [9], [10]

Feel free to email me. I see you've been here thirteen years so I can probably trust you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You are not a sockpuppet, unless there is evidence indicating so, which there isn't. But sleeping for a couple of years, then turning active and fluent at AN/I certainly makes many people suspect it's someone's new account. Given that some sockpuppets have recently gone long undetected and caused frustration, I'll reserve the right to remain skeptical but don't hold anything against you without evidence. Happy editing. --Pudeo (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand how that could look. Context for what I was doing at AN/I might help: SashiRolls "invited me to correct what [they] felt was Snoogans' copyright violation [11]; here at ANI [they] have accused Snoogans of copyright violation; I saw and continue to see what I feel is dishonesty, which I do not appreciate." Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Julius Evola disputeEdit

Hi Pudeo. There is an ongoing dispute regarding a claim made in the lede of the article on Julius Evola. Since you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, I was wondering whether you had any input or suggestions on how to proceed in the current discussion. (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think it's healthy to move on and not engage disputes from two years ago. --Pudeo (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Birthday Mark Weston (athlete) sourceEdit

Hi! I work for a list of intersex sportspeople in the German Wikipedia. For this the exact living dates of Mark Weston (athlete) would nice to know. Here you gave the exact date referenced with [12]. Because of I have no acces on it, it would be nice of you if you send me article to the adress - thank you very much! Habitator terrae (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Habitator terrae: sorry - I do not have access to the article anymore. However, you could try to request someone to send it to your email here. ODNB is subscription only - but it can be accessed from pretty much any public library in the UK. --Pudeo (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, then I will request there(, because it would be a to long way from Germany to the next public library UK;) --Habitator terrae (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  Resolved: Habitator terrae (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:True Finns logo.svgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:True Finns logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitrationEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging RaystormEdit

User_talk:Raystorm#Discussion_where_you're_mentioned - Raystorm said pings weren't working for them. You might want to alert them on their talk page for a response. starship.paint (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh they just responded to the post above yours, so I suppose they'll be reading yours as well. [13] starship.paint (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, though they seem to be reading. --Pudeo (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!Edit

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJLTalk 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1951 Australian Communist Party ban referendum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News (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) 19:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!Edit

  Thank you for your support in the enforcement matter. I am not sure what Snooganssnoogans' issue is, but my recent edits have been anything but falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears. JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pudeo".