Hi Buidhe, wondered if you could take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Moore (fundraiser)? Whizz40 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Update - it's already been reviewed and is good to go. Whizz40 (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Tourist tax 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) 10:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. Is your exhibiting your access to Cambridge University Press resources meant to encourage editors to request articles from you? There are a few articles there I've been wanting to read. Wolfdog (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Wolfdog: Sure, what can I help you with? buidhe 18:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much! Two titles I've been digging around for are "Sociolinguistic Patterns in Seattle English" and "Working the Early Shift: Older Inland Northern Speech". Thanks again! Wolfdog (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I downloaded both articles as PDFs, email me at fiamh@protonmail.com and I can send them to you. buidhe 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The term "Western European" is capitalized; see Western Europe. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• RS use both in capitalized and non-capitalized forms. It's not a typo or error and therefore shouldn't be fixed. buidhe 06:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that discussions need to be left open for at least 168 hours. Deletion discussions with little or no participation should often be closed as a soft delete rather than relisted, and multiple relists should be avoided whenever possible (especially by non-admins).

In fact, going through your recent contributions at AfD leads me to think that your talents would be better utilized by voting on AfD discussions rather than closing them. The backlog at AfD usually isn't a problem that requires help from non-admins, but we always need more people to analyze the articles and provide insightful !votes. If I could gently steer you in that direction I think it could be quite helpful. Cheers. – bradv🍁 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Two more unnecessary relists:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno Crossing, California
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conaway, California

Again, voting on discussions like these would be far more helpful. – bradv🍁 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Buidhe. In general, move discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing, as at Talk:Noongar (disambiguation). See Wikipedia:RMRELIST. Just close it as no consensus if there's no consensus for change. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, Since you are very active at RSN, I thought you could help find out what I should do. I noticed that many RSN discussions lead to a consensus, and admin closure. I had asked a question there (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage Magazine), but I am not sure if I should wait for a closure or not, since no RfC is requested. Pahlevun (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Buidhe. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The article 1938 deportation of Jews from Slovakia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1938 deportation of Jews from Slovakia 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 Jon698 -- Jon698 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The article Acceptable level of violence 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:Acceptable level of violence for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The article Acceptable level of violence you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Acceptable level of violence 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 MX -- MX (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep up the great work!! † Encyclopædius 14:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of curiosity: what do you consider original research in the statement that "ad Hitlerum" features an inflected name in the same way "ad Lutherum" does? Is basic Latin grammar something that needs citing? I do not insist on having the text there, but I wonder what the criteria for this are. Draco argenteus (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MrClog (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, in terms of WP:IMR, would you be willing to extend this move discussion out a week as relevant Wikiprojects are alerted? I didn't have mold on my watchlist, but found out about it because it affects other pages I do edit. I was pretty surprised to see it closed as support when it seemed like the proposer ironically established the fungus was the primary topic. The subject of mold and it's common name usage gets complicated and easily confused (e.g., mold vs. water mold), so it seems like a good case to treat as no consensus for this first week and encourage editors familiar with the subject (e.g., fungi/microbiology projects) to chime in. Otherwise, it looks like pretty weak turnout and some superficial comments that shouldn't be counted under WP:!VOTE to varying degrees. If it were an AfD, that's one I definitely would have relisted for more input. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you closed it a week later as "no consensus" but although I don't strongly disagree with the fungus being at the basename the previous close has been in accordance with clear consensus that was enacted and the cleanup was nearly done when it was challenged. If someone asks for a discussion to be re-opened after its been closed correctly, in accordance with the PAGs I don't think that can erase that previous consensus. I previously brought up this at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 20#Enacted discussions but no clear consensus on that emerged there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, I can see that argument but I don't think I can overturn it myself because I am a lowly non-admin. If you're bothered by it feel free to open a move review. buidhe 19:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think being a non-admin prevents you from overturning it (though to move it back you would need to ask one) since non-admins can close RMs and anyway you were the one who found consensus previously to move. I'm not really that bothered about the consensus its self but that there was previously consensus for the move that was enacted and after relisting no consensus emerged which suggests the previous consensus was correct. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_Buidhe_reported_by_User:Light_show_(Result:). Thank you. Light show (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I think it would be favourable to you to engage with this report, and disengage temporarily from trimming 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. Regards - starship.paint (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe, a report like the current one at AN3 is often closed with a block or a warning. To avoid this, you might promise to take a seven-day break from all edits on Covid topics. You would still be free to participate on talk pages. The WP:ONUS argument is not one of the exceptions to 3RR listed at WP:3RRNO, and you have been making way too many reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, you've been warned per the result of the edit warring complaint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

On 30 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ján Mlynárik, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Slovak dissident Ján Mlynárik was hunted down by the Communist authorities for criticizing the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ján Mlynárik. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ján Mlynárik), 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, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The article Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia 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 Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the language that truly did take me by surprise!,
Please read WP:RM and please don't close or participate in RM moves until you have a better understanding of the RM process, Whilst 6-7 days had passed there was certainly no consensus at all to name that article and therefore it should have been relisted for a further 7 days, If 2-3 weeks pass and no comments there sure it could've been moved but your move as it stands was way too premature/too soon,
Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• RMs are usually closed after seven days, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. I fail to see how extending the period would improve consensus, without more comments having been made. However, if you think that more comments would be beneficial, I do not object to a relist. buidhe 22:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On 3 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1938 deportation of Jews from Slovakia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1938 deportation of Jews from Slovakia was justified by blaming them for a recent territorial concession to Hungary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1938 deportation of Jews from Slovakia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1938 deportation of Jews from Slovakia), 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) 12:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw you edit regarding this, what's your opinion regarding the Second Vienna Award? Should there be also removed?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC))

• @KIENGIR: I would get rid of it since according to my search, it is only used 5% as much in English. buidhe 20:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to edit that article as well. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC))

Hi,

• @Buidhe: Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that "only 5%" of the sources use the the term "Diktat"?

I also did a search and quite a lot of historical sources (even when eliminating Hungarian/Romanian sources) either recognizing or explicitly mention the term "Diktat". Some explicitly mention the Vienna Diktat, no "award" in there - so a little bit more than just an aka...

So beside the original source cited, which is one of the definitive sources regarding World War 2, here are some other examples:

See also contemporary sources. - NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1946/05/08/archives/big-4-quickly-cede-all-transylvania-to-the-rumanians-decision-in.html - The Sydney Morning Herald, Sep. 5 1940, German Moves section / Clashes Reported sub-section: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19400905&id=MFQRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gpUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4435,472876

There are also other respected sources that can be cited (again, talking here about serious authors with are internationally recognized when it comes to the subject), using this term: for example Hugh Seton-Watson (Eastern Europe Between the Wars, 1918-1941).

So by sheer wight of the sources this term should be used (as an aka at the very least). And frankly, if contemporary sources freely used the term "diktat" (mind you, there is no "award" in there sometimes) this is telling.

And if not, could you please explain to me how is the selection of sources supposed to work? And how is the selection of citation from sources properly done?

Because I know of examples where otherwise obscure (or vaguely related to the subject) sources are brought up in order to present a more "neutral" point of view (the argument used by those editors) or even editors citing some portion of otherwise respected sources without mentioning that the same very source they cite, in the next sentence or paragraph, states that the cited paragraph (which is of the form "X said at the time something") has been since proven false. For example, say you have a respectable source - J. Smith - that states "X says that the sun is cold. But X was proven wrong." and the editor cites J. Smith in a Wikipedia article by incorporating "X said the sun is cold" and attributing that to J. Smith.

So I really am at a loss... How and why is sometimes OK to "dig up" sources that represent a tiny minority view (sometimes even proven wrong since), and use them in an article, while sources which should have a lot more weight from the perspective of those sources being experts in the subject - or simply being contemporary - are to be disregarded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs)

• @Cealicuca: Well, "diktat" is used in a few sources but it's clearly only a small minority. In general we want to avoid having multiple terms for the same thing unless it's unavoidable because it becomes MOS:NICKCRUFT: only the most common variants should be used and I've seen no indication that "diktat" is common in English. buidhe 20:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe:: "I've seen no indication that "diktat" is common in English" - First, this is not something that should be weighted in terms of "used in English". This is a specific term used to describe a specific event of WW2, so it should be weighted in that context. So... Since I've offered two contemporary sources (which can be easily checked if you so wish) - do you mean to say that the New York Times and the Sydney Morning Herald, two well established, well known newspapers (even at the time) represent a minority? Also, I've provided two well respected academics. Do they represent a minority on the subject, given how they are precisely experts on the subject? Moreover, I would greatly appreciate and answer to the last part of my question about the use of sources. Thank you and have a fine evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs)
    • Two sources are hardly evidence that the usage is common in English. And yes we are looking at usage in English sources, this is enwp. "Diktat" is used in German (although "Schiedsspruch" is apparently more common) but that's irrelevant because this is not dewiki. buidhe 21:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
      • "Two sources are hardly evidence that the usage is common in English" - I provided two contemporary, mass distributed, very well known newspapers, English newspapers. The New York Times, the 1940 printed edition, should have sufficed. I also provided two respected academics which, coincidentally, have extensively studied and published on this subject (in English), and are considered experts on the matter. So could you please explain how come you consider this as "hardly evidence" and what would otherwise constitute evidence?
      • Given that - would you please be so kind as to provide the parameters of your inquiry in the matter that led you to the conclusion that 95% of the sources don't use this term and, more importantly, how the rest of 95% sources compare, as relevance to the subject, to the two academics + two contemporary sources I mentioned?
      • The fact that it's "Diktat" or "Rosie the pink elephant" or "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is irrelevant, it's not meant to be used as a common noun, the term here is used in order to imply a specific meaning which, by the way, has everything to do with with the fact the basically Germany dictated the terms. Dictated. Not a coincidence. It doesn't have to be an English term. Just like Perestroika and Glasnost. Neither of those are English language words, are they? We are not talking about a fringe term, but a very well known one (both publicly, as evidenced, as well as scholarly), which is used precisely to imply a specific meaning.Cealicuca (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Looking at print sources in English you can see it is only a small minority in English [1]. In contrast, perestroika and glastnot are called that in English-language sources, which don't typically use "diktat" for the events discussed. buidhe 00:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
          • Good morning. Well, there are several issues with the search you did and your assessment.
          • While the term Vienna Award is mostly unambiguous, what is clear is that your search does not identify only the event we're talking about, as you have hits on that even prior to 1940, hits which may be skew the statistics after 1940 too. Given that the subject is restrictive, even 3-4 positives on a similarly named matter skew the statistics quite a lot. And having hits prior to 1940 shows that there is no certainty that the same hits, which clearly have no relationship with the events, are not also reflected in the post 1940 references. Moreover, some "spikes" skew the whole period. So you get some decade with a majority of "hits" for one term, and ignore all the other periods where the difference is really a lot less. A more refined search would be this (including Vienna Arbitration) - interestingly enough the only unambiguous term is Vienna Diktat. Hmmm...: [2]
          • In the period 1975 - 1990 the terminology is quite interchangeable. Again, given how this is a limited subject, having 25% - 50% of the sources is hardly a "minority". And if we use the more thorough search, for the same period, it's not even a minority: [3]
          • So if there is a case to make, it would be the following:
            • 1940 - 1955: Vienna Arbitration is in majority, with First Vienna Award, Second Vienna Award and Vienna Diktat closely behind
            • 1956 - 1965: First Vienna Award and Second Vienna Award get mentioned more often, with Vienna Arbitration and Vienna Diktat being less mentioned
            • 1966 - 1975: Vienna Arbitration and Second Vienna Award get mentioned more often but at the end of the decade it's a tie
            • 1976 - 1990: Vienna Diktat is used most often, with the other three terms behind
            • 1991 - 2010: Vienna Diktat is used less at the beginning, while slowly gaining traction towards the end of the decade (up to the point where again all the terms see pretty much the same level of usage)
          • Look, if there are any other reasons by which this decision has been made, you should state it. It is however crystal clear that in the context, having the "aka" terms (talking here about Arbitration too) removed is a mistake and obviously against any encyclopedic principle, since the sources use all the terms (Award, Arbitration, Diktat) with more or less frequency. Depending on the decade the terms become more or less predominant, but it is more than obvious that there isn't one term or another that is overall favored or exclusively used, or that has such a clear majority as the one initially alleged (95%) is justified. It is also clear that no term becomes obsolete over the past 70 years.
          • So... I've provided more than enough evidence "by the book", and I've done my due work regarding this. I've provided you important and relevant academic sources (by people expert in the subject), I've provided you contemporary sources that use the term, I've provided you with a more in-depth "search" for term use - certainly a lot more relevant than your original search. I've provided a lot of attention to this subject, in a very transparent manner. And if you were even a bit interested in the 20th century big conflicts (WW I and WW II, Korea, Vietnam etc.) you would certainly understand why this is quite important, even when taking into consideration your superficial initial assessment and conclusion regarding the usage of the terms. Whitewashing history is never OK - even as Wikipedia is currently filled with groups of editors/administrators doing precisely that. Whitewashing history is something it seems the contemporary newspapers didn't engage into... and I am still baffled by you dismissing it with such ease. I mean we're talking about one of the most popular US newspaper, as well as one of the most popular Australian newspaper. Whitewashing history is clearly not what modern sources do (looking at Indy Neidell's exceptional WWI + WW II documentary series for example, in case you know whom/what I'm talking about). Whitewashing was not forced upon or done by the public - you don't see those newspapers explaining what "Diktat" is - so unless people have since 1940 lost the ability to understand what Diktat means, in English, referring to the context, you argument about the use of Diktat on an English Wikipedia is flawed to say the least. May the 4th be with you!Cealicuca (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
            • You're comparing apples to oranges when comparing "First Vienna Award" and "Second Vienna Award" directly to "Vienna Diktat" and "Vienna Arbitration" (would have to be "First Vienna Diktat", etc. which does not give the result that you are looking for [4].) So these figures don't prove anything. Leaving modifiers aside it's clear that "Vienna Award" is by a clear margin the most common term. buidhe 10:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
              • No, you're wrong. You are the one doing the incorrect comparison - as I will explain. This is the correct comparison - [5]
              • An interesting fact is, if you bother to take a look at the above point link, the Vienna Diktat has started to be used since 1940, so the term is not likely to be attributed to the First Vienna Award (which happened in 1938) but rather to the Second Vienna Award - which was in 1940. Same goes for Vienna Arbitration, which because of it's usage period is denoting a clear association with the First Vienna Award. That is a hell of a lot more better basis, compared to your assumptions (or lack thereof) to do a correct comparison, like this one [6]. So you see, this is indeed apples to oranges - but you are mistakenly attributing it to me when you should attribute it to you. You compare the aggregation of the two terms (First and Second Vienna Award) with terms which are most likely exclusively used for each separate event (Vienna Arbitration / Vienna Diktat) and conclude the they are in minority. Of course each of them is in minority, taken separately, when compared to all the references to both Vienna Awards. The article on the First Vienna Award gets it right (since it mentions the Vienna Arbitration). The article on the Second Vienna Award got it right too (since it mentioned the Vienna Diktat). You are the one who gets it wrong. There is a clear correlation.
              • Those figures above are the correct usage and interpretation, as much as we can apply statistics (which is still an issue for the reasons below). The whole premise of you using statistical analysis is faulty. Here are some of the problems that your "search" suffers from:
              • First of all you haven't even concerned yourself with the first and most important question when it comes to statistics: can I even apply statistics? What is the sample size? Are all results "equal" from a relevance point of view? Are there 10s, or 100s, or 1000s of results? Because applying statistics without having first figuring out the above (as well as some other important factors) is what people who have no idea about how statistics work do.
              • Your "5%" result betrays that you either don't know how to calculate whatever it is that you wanted to calculate or you didn't even bother, so probably you eye-balled it. So what exactly are you trying calculating and how did you go about doing it? That's a pretty important detail you did not clearly mention.
              • You also clearly disregarded the concept of implied assumptions in statistical analysis (like for example how you simply dismiss all non-printed sources and them some printed sources by using this tool, most importantly - how you give the same weight to all sources even though obviously some are more relevant than others - unless Wikipedia changed the rules on that recently, how you failed to notice that the term Vienna Award pops up even before 1938/40 [7] which means that it may possibly skew the statistics in it's favor (meaning they were sometimes used post 1938 referencing the same thing they referenced before 1938, which is definitely the events under discussion here), how this anomaly is reflected in the numbers - because if you only have some 10s of results to work with, then 2 or 3 unrelated references, that pop up even before 1938/40, will artificially inflate the results towards Vienna Award by a very significant margin. This is why I used the First Vienna Award and Second Vienna Award. Those are not to be found pre-1900 so at least this error is removed.
              • So basically you apply statistics without any evidence that it can or should be applied. You also apply it in the wrong way, dismissing all basic concepts about that. But what is more important, you dismiss as "not enough evidence" some evidently hard, relevant sources (you can hardly get better sources than that - in relation to what we're discussing): like two of the most popular newspapers (contemporary with the events - which is quite relevant related to the usage of the terms) as well as two of the most relevant academics dealing with the issue. Again, it seems that Wikipedia's rules are up for (mis)interpretation and that it's rather a question of how much you can spin some "statistical analysis" rather than applying the Wikipedia rules. Those four sources together (even though one of them should suffice) would and should trump, in terms of WP:WEIGHT any... unsuccessful... attempt of yours at statistical analysis. The term Vienna Diktat is not a fringe term to describe the event, nor is it used by a "tiny" minority. Quite a lot of times not even a minority, but in the majority of sources. Depending on the the period, Vienna Arbitration gets more or less usage than the First Vienna Award, and the Vienna Diktat gates more or less usage than the Second Vienna Award. The only reason to eliminate it is either because you jumped the gun and didn't quite think this through, out of lack of knowledge on the subject/statistical analysis or, hopefully not, to condone historical whitewashing. So you take your pick. Either way, you're practically eliminating well sourced and relevant material from an article in clear disregard to the rules of Wikipedia - or any encyclopedic principles for that matter - but rather based on a faulty argument.Cealicuca (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of London fiscal surplus 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! Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I am blanking on where to link his article from to remove the orphan tag. Any ideas? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, well failing all else there's List of Polish Jews and List of Holocaust victims. I can't think of anything better. buidhe 11:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I can work with that, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Commentary on Romans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Buidhe, I hope you're doing well these days. I've noticed your extraordinary contributions to the Holocaust articles. There is some kind of edit war in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. There is also an ongoing debate about the lead and Background section, the chronological order of events, broader context etc. Unfortunately, we have created a slightly tense atmosphere so far. If you have time, I would like you to look at the situation and try to give your opinion, as a neutral side with extensive experience. I would be honored if you would take a part in our discussion and improve the quality of the article. I'm sure you can help a lot. All the best.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Augustine studies has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Augustine scholars has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Elizium23 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On 7 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Partisan Congress riots, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Slovak authorities suspended restitution to Holocaust survivors after the Partisan Congress riots, as many partisans were unhappy at returning property to its original Jewish owners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Partisan Congress riots. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Partisan Congress riots), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Using your cambridge access, could you compare The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1146–1246 by Martin Dimnick to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich? The article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka, where the editor copied exclusively from book sources. Thanks, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 23:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Revdeled- Thank you so very Much!!!! Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 00:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pelagianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Heaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a reference to Vahakn 1995 without a full citation. Would you mind adding it?

Also, if you make use of User:Svick/HarvErrors.js, you'll be notified of such issues in the future. If you don't know how to install it, let me know, I'll walk you through it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please re-open the discussion at Talk:Glassworks (composition)? You closed the discussion whilst I was in the middle of typing there. Thanks. --188.28.24.246 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Never again 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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Rough sex murder defense 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! Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

On 11 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1957–1958 influenza pandemic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1957–1958 influenza pandemic killed at least one million people worldwide? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1957–1958 influenza pandemic), 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.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

When do you think I should make another RM for ViacomCBS International Media Networks? A lot has changed since the first RM, so I was even thinking a bold move would be appropriate, but since there was a move discussion previously I decided to do a RM. Would it be appropriate now?– BrandonXLF (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

BrandonXLF, Instead of opening a formal move request, I would suggest pinging the participants of the previous discussion and explain what's different now. If they tend to agree with you, you can go ahead and move it. (RM is a mechanism for building consensus but not a requirement for moving a page.) buidhe 02:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The dab page has three entries, so seems like it might be vaguely useful – I've moved it to Copperweld (disambiguation), leaving the way clear for a move of the company page to the simpler title, and hope that's OK with you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The philosopher is not "more primary" as you claim and so I have created a disambiguation page which seems like the sensible route. I have also fixed all the many broken links to the footballer article which you failed to do. GiantSnowman 09:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Mold (disambiguation). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Buidhe. I saw a while back that you had made a comment at WT:TFL about the Main Page appearance date of an FL you had worked on and left a comment in response. I'm not sure if the ping I left you worked or not, but the scheduled Main Page date is quickly approaching and we haven't heard back from you yet. Since I'm not an admin, I only have a few more days to swap out the list, if that's what you want. Please let me know one way or the other. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008, I decided it's fine, given the constraints on TFL. buidhe 00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Welsh fiscal deficit 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

An article you recently created, A World Without Jews, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Kleuske (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: (talk page watcher) and all, but did you really have to draftify that article one minute following its creation? One minute?! Just watchlist and come back 15" later if you have to. And another thing—if you're going to template a regular, at least try not to instruct an autopatrolled editor to use AfC! serial ^# 14:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: We have sandboxes, as many as you like, we have draft space, and we are free to take as much time as we please to construct an article that exceeds one sentence and includes enough context to make sense to the casual reader, at least includes some claim of importance, especially articles under titles like “A World Without Jews”. One minute sufficed to read the entire article, find out that Marx penned a book with the same title, find its modern counterpart, and make sure it’s not some antisemetic screed. Did the author really find it necessary to forgo the use of their sandbox and/or draft space? Did you really think it necessary to berate me here instead of coming to my talk page?

As to the “template”, I used a script, which automates the whole process, which can be a pain in the butt to do manually. If the text produced by the script offended Buidhe, I apologize to them, and point out they are, of course, not obligated to use the AfC system, but extra eyes never hurt. Kleuske (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, as a patroller I would not draftify a one sentence article about a book on verifiability grounds, because it cites itself for its own existence. The reason why I created the article was because it took me several minutes to collect all the sources which are there now (A World Without Jews) and I was worried that someone else would redirect the article in the meantime, causing messiness. buidhe 16:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

{{In creation}} or some such might be a good idea, in that case. Also, redirects can be easily overwritten. I don’t really see the messiness, there. At the moment it looks fine. Though. Problem solved. Apologies for the inconvenience. Kleuske (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have been more careful with the message, though. I did not mean to imply the subject was not verifiable. Apologies for that, too. Kleuske (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, it verged on bullying, for which there should be no excuse. Nothing needs to be done that urgently (with the exception of a few well-worn exceptions, none of which apply). serial ^#

That statement could apply equally to the article's creator too. It didn't need to be in the encyclopedia in the state it was in and there was no urgency to get it there. Unfortunately I see this a lot, and the answer isn't to chastise the patroller for doing his job. The answer is to accept that there has been a paradigm shift on gatekeeping here, and established editors should change their workflow to accommodate it. It takes ONE more edit to create an article in draft space as opposed to mainspace. Being a holder of the autopatrolled flag means the community trusts the editor enough not to do that, and frankly, repeated creation of substandard articles in mainspace is cause to remove it. Everything changes, period. That which doesn't change with the times fails. Please accept that due to societal change, Wikipedia had to change. Draft in draft or userspace. The only difference is indexing, and we shouldn't be indexing a one line article, especially since no one, not even its creator, expected it to stay that way. No one is demeaning the editor's work. An analogy: I'm old enough that the 2020 US Census was my sixth one. Every single one of them has been done completely differently. Why? Lots of things change in a ten year period, both with how technology is used and what info society needs. Wikipedia is no different. This is my ninth year at this, and it changes frequently. Is it suprising that one might be required to do things differently today than we did them 10 years ago? No, it isn't. John from Idegon (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you think that writing an article in mainspace "verged on bullying", then your philosophical approach is very different from mine, and, dare I say, most. serial ^# 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ludwik Maurycy Landau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see you closed the Umayyad Mosque Request Move, but I was thinking it should be relisted since the opinion was split 50/50 ... GPinkerton (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I believe the close was legitimate because there had been extensive discussion and no resolution, thus a no consensus result. Relisting should only be done if more discussion would be helpful. buidhe 00:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

But the discussion was only between a few editors and as I say, discussion was not in favour of keeping the present title either. GPinkerton (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I see you reverted; thanks for that and hopefully we'll get a tie-breaker or something! GPinkerton (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the talk page at semi-pelagianism re: "pejorative misnomer." Tojasonharris (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	You are doing some wonderful stuff re content creation in Eastern Europe, and more so, you didn't ruffle any feathers (yet). This is amazing, and you very much need ye' old Barnstar for that. Keep up the good job! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi buidhe,

You closed the Talk:Zionites RM as "no consensus". Procedurally, would you be okay with me moving it back to Zionites (Germany) then? Really, it was Shhhnotsoloud who should have filed the RM in the first place. I filed the RM immediately after the undiscussed move, so if there's no consensus for a title, it should go to the long-term stable title that stood for a decade+. (Ping for @Shhhnotsoloud: as well in case you have further input.) SnowFire (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I'd be content with that since it was the stable title. I'll do it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aleksandras Lileikis 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

On 18 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Pink Swastika, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the book The Pink Swastika has been described as a product of American culture wars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Pink Swastika. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Pink Swastika), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:1940 establishments in Bohemia and Moravia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Aleksandras Lileikis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aleksandras Lileikis 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been closing a fair few requested moves - thank you! But please do remember to put {{rmnac}} inside the RMT template when you close to highlight the fact that it's a non-admin close. Have a great day! Red Slash 00:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

On 20 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northern Ireland fiscal deficit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Northern Ireland subsidy is greater than the United Kingdom's annual net expenditure on the European Union before Brexit? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northern Ireland fiscal deficit), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

On 21 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Svedectvo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Slovak periodical Svedectvo (Testimony) receives a government subsidy, despite having published apologist articles defending convicted war criminals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Svedectvo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Svedectvo), 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.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Commissioner Government screenshot.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 08:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tourist tax, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some countries charge visitors a departure tax? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tourist tax. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tourist tax), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am drafting an RfC question here. Can you please take a look? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

On 23 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many post-World War II anti-Jewish attacks in Slovakia were committed by former anti-Nazi partisans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Postwar anti-Jewish violence in Slovakia), 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Buidhe. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Airport Sector (CISF).
Message added 06:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deepak G Goswami (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? 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:Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hitler's prophecy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe - before dividing up any more articles, as you did at Mysore, please read and follow WP:SPLITTING as Wikipedia's licensing requirements, require that all content contributors receive attribution. - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Arjayay: I left clear edit summaries which stated the origin of the text. I believe this is permitted, although not encouraged, by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. buidhe 19:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Buidhe. I took a brief look at some of the articles you authored and I wanted to thank you. These are very valuable topics. I looked at things around the Holocaust and Slovakia. A lot of the information is not on sk.wiki (yet?). Thank you for being a part of the Wikimedia universe.--Jetam2 (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for closing the move discussion at Talk:Nugzar Kvirtia. Sadly, I didn't see the opposes, and didn't add my clarification for that very reason. I've explained why the request should be accepted, and I hope you could re-open the move discussion? Thank you very much, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Buidhe, thank you for taking the time to review the Rights of Nature. You had some review points, and I would like to address them here.

• First, you tagged the article's lead section as being too long. I have gone ahead and significantly trimmed the lead. Please let me know if that addresses the issue.
• Close paraphrasing issues: I have looked at the pwccc.wordpress.com%2Fprograma%2F Earwig's Copyvio link you provided. It shows a medium chance of close paraphrasing issues (On the other hand I don't think there is copyright issue to consider here because the document is a non-copyrighted international declaration). As I looked more closely at the phrases the closely matched, it appeared to me that there were some reasonable use of quotation, as well as the mentioning of events like the "World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth", which is a long string of words that just happens to be the proper name for something, and if you want to talk about it, it can't be quite rephrased. So I would like to submit to you that could you reassess this as it may not be a red flag after all.
• Citations
  • "twelve countries": per your request, added citation right besides it.
  • instances of more than four citations in a row: thank you for your input. I can at least see one instance when indeed there is an unusually long string of inline citations. I will continue to mull over that aspect. If there are wikipedia policies on this I'd appreciate you pointing me to them. As far as I know there is greater emphasis in combating under-citing, than potential over-citing.

I wonder if with the actions taken and and explanations provided, if your assessment of the DYK nomination could be revised accordingly. As I understand it, articles need not be perfect for them to be featured as a DYK article, and I think this article is already quite good, albeit surely improvable in the future. Thank you.Al83tito (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Al83tito, The downside of too many citations is that it actually may make it more difficult to verify information. In the case above, I wasn't sure which citation had the information I was looking for. It also has a negative impact on readability, see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. As I said, it's good practice to place citations as close as possible to the information supported. However, it's not required for the DYK criteria. buidhe 18:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Incitement to genocide 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 Pi -- Pi (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed and clearing my misconception. So effectively copy-edit seems some thing like just old time proof reading. Let that be.

Is there any project for supporting in article update and expansions ?

Thanks and warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Bookku: You can ask at the talk page of the wikiproject(s) listed on the article talk page, in this case WT:SONGS or WT:Feminism. It's a volunteer effort so there's no guarantee anyone will step up. buidhe 01:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Buidhe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Political and military wing".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, I noticed you declined two copy-edit requests at the GOCE Requests page. While I understand and support your declines, the Guild's usual practice is to put the requests on hold and start a discussion at the Requests talk page (REQ Talk), which I'll do in a few minutes. This allows discussion between editors and leaves a record in our archives, especially now we have the bot for archiving. Thanks for noticing the problems though; it's appreciated. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your contributions. I am slowly going through the article looking for references without page numbers and genuinely appreciated you finding those for me. There are more still--feel free to continue to help out with locating those! I also wanted to let you know your efn at [8] is not displaying properly and I haven't a clue how to fix it. I don't know how to do one in the first place. I'm still a relative newby. Again, thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Now  Fixed buidhe 07:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Holy Toledo that was fast! You are pretty amazing I'm thinking! Thank you! Wow! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back to beg... :-) I don't suppose you'd be interested in reviewing this article for GA would you--maybe after I get all the references cleaned up? Maybe?Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I hope you won't mind--I copied your anti-semitism box to put on my user page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course not—imitation is flattery :) I answered on the talk page. buidhe 07:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to learn to imitate you in every possible way! I looked at your user page and don't think I have ever seen such an impressive list. I was right--you are amazing. I guess I will remove the GA template until I have completed fixing the references--and maybe I'll remove that map too. It doesn't really add much. It was an image, and I was having a hard time coming up with images of "thought." Thank you for your help and I understand about not doing the article. It's an obscure area of an obscure somewhat esoteric field. But it's my field of study and interest both, so there I am. :-) If you feel like checking in agagin at any time, please do. I welcome your input.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that material from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and from Der Spiegel fails WP:EL but it most certainly does not. Please be more careful in your editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please see my reply on the talk page, EL should provide a unique resource beyond just a summary of basic factual information. buidhe 07:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

On 29 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Never again, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama vowed "never again" (memorial pictured), but genocide took place during each of their presidencies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Never again. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Never again), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)