User talk:Buidhe

I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	A sincere thank you for your work on Holocaust articles. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Error has no rights

On 2 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Error has no rights, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the superseded Catholic doctrine that "error has no rights", non-Catholics did not deserve civil or political rights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Error has no rights. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Error has no rights), 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) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Failed assassination attempts

Hello, Buidhe,

Why are you moving so many articles out of this category? They've been added to this category over the years and doing an mass emptying is not appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Liz, I moved them to Category:Failed assassination attempts in Europe. There is no mass emptying (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:WekaFS

Hello Buidhe. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:WekaFS, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Need Your help in Begin Sadat Center for strategic studies

I believe that there is a user with multiple fake accounts is trying to vandalize the article and turning it into promotional campiagn instead of encyclopdic work , he is deleting third party sources then added tons of primary sources , then engage din edtiing warring they/he needs to be blocked or something , or You can secure the article maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin%E2%80%93Sadat_Center_for_Strategic_Studies . Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Paradise Chronicle and User User:AppleBsTime turned out to be planning a conspiracy against me on Begin Sadat Center article , they pre planned an escalated dispute to grant me a block , here is the evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paradise_Chronicle#Sheikh_Adi_Ibn_Musafir_was_a_Muslim and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wbiases , I believe that they need to be blocked and banned for life along with their IP ranges over their hateful and abusive behavior , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We probably have a textbook case of Wikipedia:BOOMERANG about to unveil itself. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Die BIF/GA1

Buidhe, you are still listed as the reviewer of this GA nomination, yet you have not been responding to pings. If you are no longer interested in pursuing this review, please let me know and I'll look for another reviewer. If you are, please post in response to the recent comments there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your continued efforts at WP:FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Your GA nomination of Nástup

The article Nástup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nástup 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your long-standing dedication in writing quality World War II and history articles. Thank you for all your hard work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't think I've done a GAR before, and I guess I didn't read the instructions closely enough. Thanks for fixing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Swapping pages with talk pages

Looks like you got hit by the same pageswap bug that I've seen a few other times lately: if you do a pageswap of two pages where one has a talk page and the other doesn't, the redirect from moving the talk page will be improperly suppressed. I just created two missing redirects at Talk:September 1859 geomagnetic storm and Talk:September 1859 geomagnetic storm/Archive 1. Please keep this in mind for future pageswaps. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:57:43, 4 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Holcman1

• Holcman1 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Holcman1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear wiki controller,

Could you give me access to my page.

Single_particle_trajectories

The statement of copyright mentioned in your email is non-sense,

1-as I am the corresponding author and own the rights of my papers that you are quoting. Iam OK to give right to wikipedia.

2-I wrote the article by making substancial changes compared to the exiting review. I am not sure how this decision was made.

Thus I reject the statement of the email below. Best, David.

Holcman1 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Holcman1, Hello, thanks for your contributions! Unfortunately, we have to confirm that you have the rights to the content in question. The easiest way to donate your text so that it can be used on Wikipedia is to add somewhere on the website a "The text of this paper is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License." (This is the same free license that Wikipedia uses.)

If that is not possible, there are other ways to do it; see WP:DONATETEXT.

Once we have established that you have the rights to the text, please let me know and I will ask an administrator to undelete the page. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pelagianism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pelagianism 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 Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jananayak Dr. Chowdari Satyanarayana (CSN) Article

sir, this article has been deleted if I want to publish it again so I can do that. there would not be an issue of permission or thing like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutahar Maqsood (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 45 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this article submission.

Hello. I probably should have clarified it somewhere, but the purpose of this submission is actually to allow us to move the corresponding section to a separate article, since it's already too long and its disproportionate length hinders addition of new material. So, should I resubmit it? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez, Ah, I see. I hadn't checked the size of the other article. I've now passed it. (t · c) buidhe 11:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

All right, thank you. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pelagianism

The article Pelagianism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pelagianism 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 Aircorn -- Aircorn (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Moved to draft

Your name appears in the page history of an article I created, stating you added the AfC box. The article has been moved to the Draft space; something that I have never heard of before, even though I have created 237 pages in Wikipedia. I did find, on the Wikipedia AfC page this sentence "The Articles for Creation (AfC) process is intended to assist editors who cannot (e.g. non-registered or non-autoconfirmed users)... create new articles directly into mainspace." But I am far from "non-regitered" and far from "non-autoconfirmed". I made my first edit in 2006 and I have 9,165 live edits. I have had the same user-name the entire time, and I was logged-in when I created the moved article. I am, to say the least, deeply puzzled as to why it was moved to Drafts. Since your name appears in the history, I hope you can explain why it was moved. I am assuming good faith, but believe some error was made. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

RM closure

Good morning, you closed this RM discussion upon a nomination by User:Johnbod very quickly, after only one oppose by User:Place Clichy. Could you please reopen the discussion in order to allow some more reactions? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, Sure. I have been told by other experts that relisting RMs in general is discouraged. (t · c) buidhe 09:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I am also not too sure if relisting helps to get more reactions, but leaving a discussion open for a longer period because of too few initial reactions certainly doesn't harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Víctor Pérez (footballer)

When you moved this page you did not move across the talk page... GiantSnowman 10:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, In fact I did, please see the history of Talk:Víctor Pérez (footballer). (t · c) buidhe 10:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

no, because Talk:Víctor Pérez Alonso is a standalone talk page, given that Víctor Pérez Alonso redirects to Víctor Pérez (footballer)....so Talk:Víctor Pérez Alonso should be a redirect to Talk:Víctor Pérez (footballer) and not standalone. GiantSnowman 11:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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#User:Buidhe reported by User:Eric (Result: ). Thank you. Eric ^talk 11:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed user - can I start articles direct?

Hello:

You recently contacted me about my translation from the German Wiki on Martin Dibobe. This now appears in the English Wiki and I am pleased about that. I believe that I am now an 'Extended Confirmed User'.

I have new article, this time from the Italian Wiki but with a lot of new information, all of which is cited. It is still in draft form and I will finish it within a day or two.

My question is this: will it have to stay in Draft form until I have submitted it for approval? Or can I just go ahead and put it up onto the English Wiki off my own bat, given that I am an 'Extended Confirmed User'?

Thanks for your advice and help.

--Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mikeo1938, the Articles for Creation process is not mandatory. Once you are autoconfirmed you can move drafts to mainspace or start articles in mainspace. See Help:How to move a page for guidance. Thanks for your contributions! (t · c) buidhe 13:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - I posted twice! --Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Buidhe, for your prompt reply and the info. I will go ahead along those lines. --Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

2021 MLB Season

• Hello. I was just wondering how the 2021 MLB season page can become active and not a draft. There has been three managerial changes that are on the list now. Thank you. posty (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ronald A. Weinberg

Reply - Why was Talk:Ronald A. Weinberg only closed after one relist? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have been told by knowledgeable editors that it is discouraged to relist move requests more than once. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping}}), so I will be notified". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of move request at Exo

Hi, Buidhe. Would you revert your closure of the move request at Talk:Exo (group). Closes of "no consensus" should be done by admins (WP:NACPIT, just an essay). Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• As you stated, it's just an essay. Is there an actual problem with the close? (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Greek Case

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Greek Case has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, Thanks so much for the copyedit! it was very helpful for improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Adam Puławski

On 17 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adam Puławski, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 130 historians protested the Institute of National Remembrance's removal of Adam Puławski from his position researching Polish–Jewish relations during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adam Puławski. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Adam Puławski), 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) 00:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Miami Nights 84

Hi there

you declined Draft:Miami Nights 1984 on the grounds that it was deleted at an AFC discussion.

please note this was undeleted and the original AFC was closed on soft delete terms, so it is now eligible for an actual review at draft space.

I have resubmitted it,

  Kadzi   (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Kadzi, I actually declined based on WP:NMUSIC. I was just noting the deletion discussion for future reviewers. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, you didn’t put that as the reason so I wasn’t to know :S   Kadzi   (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I did, see the banner which states "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics)." (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Second Punic War

Hi Buidhe, and thanks for starting the source review on this. Without even checking out your various comments it is clear that your summary is correct - "Overall, there are some significant issues with verifiability here" - and so I have withdrawn it. I would like to say to work on, but I am perturbed by the trend of my last three or so FAC/ACR nominations of Punic War articles, where the quality of my sourcing has become steadily worse. I am unsure why this is, but - apart from wrapping up one way or another the various other nominations I have open - I think it it best if I take a break from ACR and FAC nominations and sort out what is going wrong in my head. As and when I do make further nominations above GAN, it would probably be best for me to avoid Punic War articles. (Where I am guessing that I have become so familiar with the sources that I am struggling to actually read them.) At least for a while. Obviously, if and when I re-nominate this article, I will ping you to let you know.

And a heartfelt thank you for your many past, and ongoing, source reviews; they have all been appreciated. Let me know as and when I can reciprocate. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, It's actually more difficult to write a well-referenced article about a topic that you know a lot about. Too easy to write down what you know is correct and then cite a source that doesn't cover it completely. I also had this problem, but after its FAC failed, I went through and matched a source quote for all information in the Holocaust in Slovakia article (Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check). It was a pain but it also helped me write more verifiable articles.

I appreciate all the reviews you've done for my articles! If you are in the mood I do have a FAC open for Hitler's prophecy. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. I think that I have learnt that the hard way. I moved on from the 100 Years' War one article away from a 12 article featured topic because it was starting to feel like work rather than fun. I was aware that I was struggling a bit to reread the same sources for literally the thirtieth time with my First Punic War articles. I had hoped that moving on to the Second and Third Wars would cure this, but it seems to have got worse. I will wrap up what Punic War articles I have in hand, with no noms above GAN, and then move on to a different era and area; goodness knows that there are enough which could do with some TLC.

On the 3PW article, Borsoka is now satisfied re the duplication issue; I don't know if you are too. I will be taking your "Slovakia Approach" today and going through my cites one by one (trying) to check that they actually support what they are supposed to.

Hitler's prophecy: definitely. Firmly on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Polish Stonewall

Hello! Your submission of Polish Stonewall 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! Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights

I don´t think I am in an edit war. I addded a series of authors stating that access to the ECHR is very limited and that effectiveness of this Court is suffering as a consequence. There is plenty of literature about these developments. For me it´s only important to deliver a somewhat complete picture for Wikipedia. In law literature the situation I have portray is well-known. To present an utopian picture of the ECHR is helful for none.Srt2

• @Srt2: First, I would like to thank you for your post. Wikipedia policy and guidelines require that we do not present a "utopian picture of the ECHR" but rather that the article presents the topic with a neutral point of view according to due weight in reliable sources. I think we can agree on that?
• Your edit added the statement:

Such a statement is hardly tenable already in view of the fact that it is not clear on the basis of which criteria such a jugment is made. Furthermore this statement ignores the circumstances that access to this Court is very limited and has become further restricted in the recent past.

• Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not your own opinion that it is "hardly tenable". So, in order to include this statement in the article without breaching no original research requirement, you would need to cite a source which specifically criticizes the idea that ECHR is the most effective international human rights court.
• I am also concerned that your edits are emphasizing some information beyond what is due weight. The Supreme Court of the United States also rejects to hear the vast majority of cases, but it is not mentioned in the lead of that article. In general, sources spend much more time discussing what the ECtHR does rather than the cases it doesn't hear. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Buidhe for your considered remarks. I think we widely agree. There is only one point that - according to my opinion - needs further consideration: Should we really engage in a discussion about which Court is "the best one", "the most efficient one"? Do I really have to prove that the ECHR is not the most efficient human rights Court? I think that the approach chosen by the previous commentators praising the ECHR as the most efficient one on a world-wide scale is simply wrong. First of all, such talk is highly problematic because it conveys a message of superiority, highly problematic especially in the field of human rights. And what is more: Any regional human rights court is operating in a context-specific reality. It is really naive to believe that these regional rules could be simply transferred to another region. Can we agree that we add a note with literature that emphasizes this context-specifity? Here a reference to a book that has just been published and that explains were clearly the limits of any comparison:

http://pedone.info/livre/les-3-cours-regionales-des-droits-de-lhomme-in-context/

We can say that one court evidences some particularities the other does not have. But it is absolutely impossibile to create a "ranking" between human rights courts. To put it differently: It is not possible to state that the ECHR is the "most efficient human rights court" - but neither is it possible to prove the contrary.Srt2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srt2 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tip: write lead last

I just added lead to my recent articles on Far future in fiction and Near future in fiction. It is best to only write a one-sentence lead until you are finished developing the article, and then summarize key points at the top - not the other way around. See also WP:LEAD. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Historical policy of the Law and Justice party for deletion

I suggest you ignore this. I have speedily closed the discussion as a purely disruptive nomination by an account now CheckUser-blocked. JBW (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you do, from incredibly (and likely incredibly difficult) content writing, to great (source and other) reviews, to well-thought out opinions in AFDs and other forums. Your work really makes Wikipedia a better place. Keep it up! Eddie891 Talk Work 02:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you! :) (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Christian metal does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_metal&curid=211913&diff=984744821&oldid=981565478 but without an edit summary, I don't know what to think. I assume it's because the content is not licensed or has a copyright issue. Correct? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the template btw. I see. It's a series of edits. The first states "fails WP:NFCC and IMAGELOC". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

consider clearing your cache?

A stub on Erik Voeten is now in mainspace and all links to that article should be blue. In fact, I was in the middle of writing it when I was notified of your first revert. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is ENGLISH Wikipedia...

...not German Wikipedia, or any other language Wikipedias. Our DAB pages point to articles here, not elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:DABSISTER:

Sister projects

Disambiguation entries should not be created for subjects whose only content is on pages of sister projects (including other-language Wikipedias).

Now, please stop misbehaving. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Please see MOS:DABRL where it says that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." The language you are using is not helpful. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ignore this

[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

AE

I reported your false attribution to the source about PiS allegedly denying murder of Jews here [2] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Now closed with no action. Admins commented "I'm not seeing any basis for action" and "Reasonable people can and do disagree over the proper interpretation of a reference." (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you fix the article after move/split?

Act on the Institute of National Remembrance needs categories, and I think the interwiki links are messed up. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian dash

Please see talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Hyphen or dash in the title. —Michael Z. 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Verfassungsblog

On 25 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Verfassungsblog, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a law blog has been cited by the supreme courts of Poland and of Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Verfassungsblog. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Verfassungsblog), 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) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hi, Buidhe. Good work on Post-conflict reception of war criminals. I noticed more than half the lead is about the former Yugoslavia and consider this WP:UNDUE. Think you could expand it to include some of the other areas covered in the article? Also, I feel the US sub-heading could include a mention of William Calley and the Mỹ Lai massacre. That would be all from me. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion closer

I understand there is a "requested move" option in DC? In any case, your close at Talk:RSN Racing & Sport#Requested move 18 October 2020 used an incorrect format, so the bot listed it as a malformed request. It's been fixed, so this is just an fyi. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification for source

Hello, I noticed that some information about this song was removed by you because the claim is based on a dubious source. Is Musicnotes the source you were referring to? Was the vocal range claim removed because of what this page says about using sheet music sources? Thanks. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ThedancingMOONpolice, Concerns were raised about the reliability of the source for that particular claim on the Reliable sources noticeboard. In addition to being a surprising claim that needs a strong source, the exact vocal range of a song is the kind of trivia that we wouldn't ordinarily include unless sources emphasize it. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz, Partisan Congress riots and The Holocaust in Slovakia. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)