User talk:Buidhe/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Buidhe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bot?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Vmavanti: calling editors bots is a violation of WP:NPA. I am surprised to find you have made many edits to WP. buidhe 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a question, not a statement, and therefore not a violation. I have never seen an Afd closed by a non-admin. I guess I could "retaliate" with the insult "I am surprised to find you have made many edits to WP" but I won't, because mainly all I feel is pity.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Never again 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:Never again for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Never again you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Never again 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 CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Vami_IV submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Buidhe to be Editor of the Week for their awesome labors in improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Shoah in Poland and Czechia, and of Ireland. In the two years I have been aware of Buidhe, and have had the pleasure of working with them, they have brought around a dozen articles to Good Article, and one to Featured. I cannot speak for their involvement in Articles for Creation, but I can tell you all about this editor's work on the Shoah - I reviewed many of their articles as the WikiProject Germany coordinator and can vouch for their quality. 2018 was something of a golden year for this editor, but it didn't really receive a sequel in 2019. They vanished for a time, and I became concerned that they had departed Wikipedia. Thankfully, that was not the case, and now they're back to do and be more. It appears the good old days have returned, and to celebrate, I'd like to congratulate and encourage Buidhe to go for (more) gold. This nomination was seconded by Gog the Mild and Mr Serjeant Buzfuz.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

The symbol "Chai" (חי) which means "living" in Hebrew

Buidhe

Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 24, 2020

Improved Wikipedia's coverage of the Holocaust in Poland and Czechia, and of Ireland. Brought a dozen articles to Good Article status (with one to Featured). Involved in reviewing activity at FAC and ACR.

Recognized for

diligent editing of a difficult subject matter

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 11:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, Buidhe! I was honestly shocked that you hadn't received this before, so I had to nominate you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I really appreciate it! buidhe 07:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, this is richly deserved. It is surprising that you did not receive one long ago, and embarrassing that I didn't think to nominate you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The redirect is the equivalent of a delete. There is clearly either no consensus or a keep result. Please reopen and allow an experienced administrator to close this. It was relisted May 29 and you closed it 3 days into the relist. Lightburst (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I count three votes for "delete", two for "keep", one for "keep or redirect", and one for redirect, so I think splitting the difference is reasonable. Discussions can be closed at any point after relisting. buidhe 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So that is a no? If so I will ask for a deletion review. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kappa/Kaaos. 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. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove images from en.wiki articles after you have nominated them for deletion at Commons. The mere nomination does not mean that the will definitely be deleted. Wait for the actual deletion, at which time a bot will remove the image. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Please don't restore images unless you're willing to defend them as not copyvio. Wikipedia:Copyright violations is pretty clear that we should not be including or linking to copyrighted material. buidhe 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Images nominated for deletion aren't ASSUMED to be deleted. They're deleted afater discussion. Your views are not necessarily controlling. OPlease stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

AnomieBOT handles these automatically, so there's no need for a person to handle the closures. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 20 for example. Wikiacc (¶) 01:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. buidhe 01:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Buidhe, I'm Tenryuu from the GOCE. I see you reverted a previous copy editor's edit and are still frequently editing the article. Are you still looking for a copyedit or are you withdrawing your request for now? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Tenryuu: I have not withdrawn the request. I explained some of the issues with the previous copyedit on CW's talk page. Also, I am not expanding the article any more. buidhe 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, thanks for linking me to that; it appears CW didn't set up links to an archive so I assumed they just deleted it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Hitler's prophecy. Expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect German causalties in World War I. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3#German causalties in World War I until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I've finished the GA review of Incitement to Genocide. I've put it as On Hold for now as there are some issues to address, but it's been interesting working on it, and reading through some of the sources has given me a list of things I want to improve about some of the ICTR cases. Pi (Talk to me!) 02:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

buidhe, the nominator has supplied a couple of new ALT hooks per your review; please stop by and look them over when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You've done a 4th revert inside of a short time which breaches policies. Would you like to self-revert so we can continue discussion on talk? --Coldtrack (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• According to WP:Edit warring, making sure that articles featured on the mainpage are policy-compliant is a mitigating excuse. I am unwilling to restore content to the article that violates core content policies. buidhe 05:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are short references to Gilbert 1987, Knežević 2011, Goldstein 2007, Dizdar 1997 and Goldstein 2005 in there. Would you mind adding them? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You can install Svick's script per these instructions to automatically get warned of these issues in the future BTW. It's very handy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Any updates? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am just working on that Signatory Section. Please leave it as it is. I need some time. And it does not help when important information is suddenly gone. Thanks!

Royalrec (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Royalrec, The wikicode is still preserved in the edit history. Actually, it would be even better to separate the list into a separate article on List of signatories of Charter 77 with more information on who each one is, date signed, etc., with more detail than would be appropriate in the main article. buidhe 13:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But please give also a chance to do it. Erasing everything is no separation, but makes people disappear as if they were not worth mentioning.

In such actions like Carta 77 these people were actually heroes risking to be prosecuted and killed by Soviet-minded government. They show the courage we are lacking today in terms of racisim and discrimination in many parts of the world. And all of those signers were high ranking scientists and writers. So please be patient... Royalrec (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe! How do you relist RM discussions? Use of any script or manual edit. How does it work? ~SS49~ {talk} 14:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• ~SS49~: I follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Relisting_a_requested_move and use {{subst:relisting}} buidhe 14:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 14:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (book) 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Manufacture of Bf 109 wings at Flossenbürg concentration camp.jpg. 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) 02:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hitler's prophecy 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 Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

qedk (t 愛 c) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

buidhe, can you please return to your review here and check whether the nominator's attempts to address the issues you raised have been successful? If you aren't interested in continuing the review, please let me know and I'll call for a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted parts of your edits on the Sobibor article, so I just wanted to say “hello” and that I’d be happy to discuss if you think I’m missing something. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please do not re-insert entries of deceased who died more than thirty days ago from today's date if they still do not have ENGLISH articles. The mutually agreed 30-day rule was designed to give editors a chance to create these English articles, and if they're not started after a month (Inter Language Link or not), they are taken out. They can be re-introduced in the future when an English article is started for the subject, but no redlinks of any kind are allowed after 30 days. Please do not revert my edits, because all that will happen is you will have other regular editors turning up to take them out again. If you have a problem with this, please start a thread on the talk page. Because this is long-held consensus you are challenging, and no-one can ride in roughshod and change it by editing individual articles as they see fit. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Buidhe, I would appreciate if in the future you provide edit summaries to explain when you randomly create a new section with a single work listed in it and no prose. Further, if you feel the page needs a section listing additional sources, it is on you to provide them, not to demand other editors do the work for you to justify the new section's creation. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Pinchme123: please see MOS:FURTHER. These sections exist on many articles and are rarely controversial. buidhe 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Listing a single, recently-published book with no explanation, while creating the section to do so, is at least suspect. These sections are indeed commonplace and not controversial, but not for merely listing one book. Please, next time, provide a proper edit summary as is customary. And also please, for next time, do not demand others justify your creation by putting in their own effort. We're all volunteers. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I never said you had to expand it. Further reading sections with just one item are perfectly acceptable. buidhe 17:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect German surrender. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#German surrender until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

buidhe, the nominator has come up with a new ALT hook. Please return as soon as possible to see whether it does the trick, since you had issues with earlier attempts. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you said that I have to put more reliable source, but to be honest, I didn't write this article, I just translated it from Chinese to English, little is known about this organisation, as it is not one of the main government organisations, and yes, I will put the reference too, thanks.Keith chau yet (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

❯❯❯ S A H A 08:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:OĽaNO politicans 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!} 13:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: You moved my article to a draft yesterday. Could you review this article now? I don’t really want to wait 5 weeks or more. Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion about Cliftonian at WT:FAR, and nearly replied there at the time, but other matters arose in the meantime. I've replied at the D'Oliveira Affair talk page, but just to reiterate here: if there are concerns about Cliftonian's use of sources in articles about southern Africa, they would not particularly apply to this article. The bulk of the research for the article was done by me, and in terms of content, Cliftonian added very little, and certainly did not add any sources. Most of his work was copy-editing, which I did check at the time, and I've re-read the article since noticing the discussion at WT:FAR, and from my viewpoint, I think it is still OK. Any errors would be mine, but I am confident that this article meets FA criteria regarding sourcing, and that it is a good representation of what the sources say about the D'Oliveira affair. For future reference, it might be a good idea to check if Cliftonian had any co-nominators at his FAs, and inform them as well as dropping a rather blunt note on the talk page. Had I not already been following the discussion, I would have been a little surprised, confused and, perhaps, offended. Sarastro (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My accurate edit to the Times of Israel entry was immediately revoked. I apologise if I cited incorrectly, the quote comes from a popup promoting subscription on the site when you first visit. I don't know how best to cite this, but I really don't see anything misleading about quoting the site itself. ^[1] --A basket, and two pigeons in it (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service/archive1, as I have gone through your list of objections, as well as the recommendations of a number of other reviewers, and done my best to remedy them. If there are any further issues I'd like to get them sorted ASAP. Thanks Hammersfan (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Buidhe! I came back to tell you I have finished going through all the references in the article. I am feeling very confident about its content and sources and would give my right arm to have you take a look at it and see if you think it's okay to nominate it for GA. I know you said you don't know much of the topic, but that shouldn't matter really, you know WP standards, and I admire your work here and respect your opinion. If you aren't interested that's okay I understand, or if you're too busy--I get that--but I wanted to ask. I could go ahead and nominate it and you could review it if you think that's a good idea. Anyway, I'd love to hear from you. Thanx again, Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Good evening Buidhe, Hattab Dhib was a Tunisian actor. He has french and arabic wikipedia articles . I would like to conserve my article. Thank you --MagieRouge (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem with describing him as Israeli? GiantSnowman 09:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have a "problem" with it, I just don't think that nationality should be highlighted in the first sentence unless it's something relevant to the person's notability/work. From the sources I looked at, it did not seem to be the case. buidhe 09:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added sources, they were quite easy to find. Again, what is your issue here? GiantSnowman 09:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I answered your question already. I don't think it's necessary or helpful to highlight someone's nationality way more than it is in the vast majority of reliable sources discussing the subject (the sources you added just show that is an aspect mentioned in a small minority of sources). Wikipedia likes to put people into boxes by nationality way more than is done in most RS. buidhe 09:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nationality should be in the lede per MOS:OPENPARABIO. Reliable sources use the nationality. So...what? GiantSnowman 09:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS is a general guideline. Nationality is relevant to many people, such as politicians. But I think it the first sentence should be evaluated on a case by case basis rather than dictated by a blanket application. buidhe 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, PS I don't appreciate threats to "escalate this". buidhe 09:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And I don't appreciate blind reverting of information, in violation of MOS, with no attempt to find sources or resolution. GiantSnowman 10:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If I think MOS is being applied in a blanket fashion without thought or nuance, then I may oppose that particular interpretation or change. buidhe 10:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have set a DABTEST using the Meteorological fall which doesn't have any views[[1]] in the last 20 days. You suggested about moving the DAB page temporarily for the DABTEST. I agree that there is no consensus but indeed you have agreed that there is consensus for a temporarily move of the DAB to the base name. @King of Hearts: if you want to set up redirects for the other common terms on the DAB page you can otherwise we can just go with the season one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, don't worry about it, King of Hearts has already taken care of it, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,

Thanks for discussing the possible move of the Inayati Order to Inayatiyya. I'm sorry I didn't respond in time. With regard to independent sources, this move is very new and I am not sure there have been major articles about it in the last few months, though I will check. The group itself seems to be moving to not considering Inayati Order as their name at all. The name of their website [2] is still the old name, but everything else within the site uses the new one. Two of the most recent articles that I did find are this [3] from January, speaking about the Inayati Order. This most recent one, from earlier this month, cites an Inayatiyya. [4] They officially changed their name in April, though this has been in the plans for a while. I do think that outside sources will begin to use the new name over time. Thanks again for your input!

AnandaBliss (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• @AnandaBliss: Thanks for your reply. It looks to me that it's too soon to say whether independent sources will pick up the new name. I would suggest waiting another few months to see if that changes. When it does, feel free to file another move request. buidhe 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• • That makes sense to me, I'll do that. Thanks! AnandaBliss (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The article Incitement to genocide 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:Incitement to genocide for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi -- Pi (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The article Incitement to genocide you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Incitement to genocide for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pi -- Pi (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, PLEASE, I urge you, use {{rmnac}} when you close a requested move. Red Slash 19:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

— Wug·a·po·des​ 23:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 00:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the random message and request. I was wondering if you could possibly do an image review for my current FAC. The article only has two images so hopefully, it would not take too much work. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. The nomination is still rather new, as I have only put it up earlier this month, but I am very grateful for the commentary it has already received at this point. I hope you are having an enjoyable week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: fair use isn't really my area of expertise so I'll leave this review to a different user. I've added it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. buidhe 04:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response and for adding it to the list. I hope you are staying safe, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I ask because the Fotos Aus Sobibor book has some interesting and (I think) novel information about Lager II. I'd like to summarize it in the article, but I'm not sure I understand it well enough to be sure I'm accurately reflecting it. Do you think you could check over my attempt? Thanks again for all your work on the article! Botterweg14 (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Botterweg14 Not perfect, but I'd be happy to give it a go. Google translate does pretty well with German as well. I don't have a copy of the book, however. buidhe 01:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, is it okay if I answer Botterweg14? I know it's weird writing on someone else's talk page, but I was passing by and I saw this and thought of Gerda Arendt and Ermenrich who are both Germans whose English is perfect and who are both really exceptionally wonderful totally brilliant people who might also be willing to help. It doesn't hurt to ask! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, It's not just accepted but encouraged, if you or someone else could help him better than I could! buidhe 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're so cool.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much to you both! I think I've figured out what I was confused about, but I may take you up on the suggestion as I continue to expand the article. I do wanna recommend buying the book, given your interest in the subject. It's available both as a hard copy and as an ebook. It's more than just a collection of the photos--- it's got a ton of new information about the site and about the perpetrators. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. Are there any unresolved image issues I can address for the FAC nomination for Hyborian War? And thanks for your time and engagement on this nomination. I appreciate it. Airborne84 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and work on my nomination. Greatly appreciate it! Airborne84 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind returning to this nomination and approving the alt? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD), I don't see a specific relevance of the German term and an interlanguage link, which is hardly usefull for the vast majority of the readers. Why do you think it's relevant? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• The German term is not an exact synonym of "standard work" in terms of usage and it could be misleading to state that the source said it was a "standard work" without hinting that the source was written in German and pointing at the actual word used. buidhe 12:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Mmh, I don't think so, but I'll leave it up to you. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Das Lachen wird ihnen vergehen!!!.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ST47 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Buidhe, either earlier this month or last month you moved Moisés Carmona to the draft space at Draft:Moisés Carmona due to the fact that the article was unsourced. Recently I've added a couple of citations, they are not the best as this is a somewhat obscure subject, but who probably meets WP:GNG. Just wanted to get your opinion if the article is ready to be moved into the mainspace again or if it should be submitted for review. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Inter&anthro, Thanks for fixing up the article! buidhe 02:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please undo your relist here and read Wikipedia:NOQUORUM and WP:RELISTBIAS. I presented a cogent enough argument that this could be treated as a prod. Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your close: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senedd on television I don't understand the decision to merge to Senedd Cymru which is a redirect.

Per Talk:Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament#Requested move 6 May 2020 the article is at Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament and it probably makes more sense to merge to there. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The article The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia (book) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you still working on the GA feedback for Incitement to Genocide, or would you like me to finish off the review now? I see you've done some changes, I've not looked at them yet as I thought you might still be planning on doing some more Pi (Talk to me!) 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Pi, Thanks for your review, I thought that I addresssed all of your concerns on the review page. So yes, I'm done editing unless you see anything else that needs addressing. buidhe 17:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll look at it again in the next day or two Pi (Talk to me!) 20:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Incitement to Genocide is passed as a Good Article. Thank you for writing it, it was very interesting to read Pi (Talk to me!) 03:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hope you are well--I don't have to ask if you're keeping busy. :-) I have just completed a redo of Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire and would love if you felt like taking a look. I think the references are all good. I tried to make sure before asking this time! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Jenhawk777: Looks good, you should go ahead and nominate for GAN. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. You were good enough to do an image review for Battle of Cape Hermaeum at ACR - here. It didn't attract any supports and I withdrew it after six weeks. It is now at FAC - here - and I wonder if you might be able to have another look at it? Thanks.

PS On a separate note, I have made sure that the sourcing doesn't have any of the same silly errors to those you recently picked up. Thanks again for that. Although I have no doubt included a whole new set. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

OK by editing and falsifying the CHARTA 77 page, you destroyed my work. You won. I will as of now refrain from working for Wikipedia. I am not willing to spend my time researching, and then someone comes and takes it all away. Do what you like! Bye! Royalrec (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 21 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)