FortunateSons

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, FortunateSons, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much FortunateSons (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A lengthy welcome

Hi FortunateSons. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful. Would it be possible to clarify whether or not the articles in question are covered, as neither me nor the persons discussed are citizens of any of the belligerents? FortunateSons (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

They are covered because the content you're trying to add is directly related to the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. May I ask three clarifying question?

1. Should my proposal then be put on hold until I reach that benchmark, or is there a way to “hand it over”?

2. This decision applies exclusively to the English Wikipedia, right?

3. Does that also apply to comments that pre-date the current conflict escalation?

FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

1. You can leave the request as it stands now, but can engage no further in discussion about it until you are extended-confirmed. Be aware that any gaming of the system to reach the threshold is likely to result in your extended-confirmed permission being revoked, being topic banned, or being blocked outright.
2. Yes, only the English Wikipedia.
3. It applies to any comments or commentary about those comments that in any way relate to the Palestine/Israel conflict.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate the clarification! That does not restrict content about the countries insofar as they are unrelated to the conflict, right? FortunateSons (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct, but keep in mind that the topic area is broadly construed, so it is wise to stay as far from any hint of the conflict as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I will do my best, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Does broad include this discussion? FortunateSons (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Gigi Hadid. Thank you. - Hipal (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy to alter content, but the references were (with the exception of a source used for specific details that I disclosed on the talk page) ABC, CNN and FAZ, which are all generally considered reliable in the context of WP:RS FortunateSons (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No offense, but are you fluent in English? --Hipal (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No offence taken. I am pretty fluent, but it is my third language, so I wouldn’t bet on understanding nuanced details completely. If I got something wrong, I am happy to correct it. However, the specific information regarding the accusations of racism against Hadid were sourced well in my opinion. No other things were added to the article by me. Could you explain what I did wrong? FortunateSons (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Given what look like difficulties understanding and addressing policy concerns, I think you should stay away from all contentious topics until you have a strong understanding of Wikipedia's content policies. It's difficult to tell if you're struggling with the language, ignoring discussions and policies, or simply WP:NOTHERE. --Hipal (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I can say that I am editing in good faith (generally using talk page, no reverts without reason, use of the noticeboard). I obviously have my bias and my areas of interest, but most of my edits were either fine or at least not actually noticed (or a question of taste resolved trough consensus, which I would consider fine). In this case, I am happy to make an edit request with a rewrite, but would appreciate feedback beyond “bad”. Is that something you could do for me? FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Until you demonstrate what you assert, I've better things to do with my time. If you can make it clear you understand the policies and comments previously brought up, you'll find it easier to make progress. --Hipal (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with me, but you can’t both disagree with my interpretation of your comments and not elaborate in which way my interpretation is wrong. FortunateSons (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can help you, and don't feel it would be worth my time given the problems I've already identified. --Hipal (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry to hear that FortunateSons (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears you've chosen to ignore this discussion. [1] [2] [3] WP:IDHT states, If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. --Hipal (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Would you be willing to direct me to the policies that I lack understanding off? FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal, I hope this message finds you well. I have now edited for a few more months without issues going beyond inter-editor disputes in the areas known for them, making over 1000 edits, thereby (hopefully) showing my ability to understand and follow policy. Looking back on the content of the discussion, I nevertheless believe that including the content is covered by dueweight and RS, particularly for incidents of which we have good coverage. If you still disagree, I’m happy to use the relevant noticeboard if you prefer; I hope to come to a solution that is in line with policy and acceptable to all.

Specifically, I would like to include:

• conduct perceived as blackface, as supported by CNN, ABC, Independent etc.
• a more in-depth coverage of statements related to the I/P conflict as defined by PIA, supported by Haaretz, Independent, FAZ and others.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond. FortunateSons (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Keep up the good work. I strongly encourage you to continue to work on other topics. --Hipal (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate the encouragement. I will think about it some more, but it’s likely that I will use a noticeboard or another tool, so this is a heads-up to keep it fair and productive. :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

prior accounts

Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not FortunateSons (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why? FortunateSons (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Your editing reminds me of somebody. Also please see WP:HOUNDING. You’ve now several times shown up where I have just edited to places you’ve never been. nableezy - 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I found a few places one place of interest from you, but never to cause distress and apologise if I did; I occasionally ‘follow’ other users if they have similar interests (as I am pretty new), and no one ever minded/noticed before. I had interactions with Mw, EI, NGOM and topics regarding I/P before you interacted with me (feel free to verify through my edit history), and my only direct interaction referencing you was me partially agreeing with you (regarding EI), a place where I followed a user who wasn’t you.

Could you clarify if I accidentally violated this “This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.“? If so, I apologise. FortunateSons (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I checked, to the best of my knowledge:

• places where I followed you:

1. Talk Page on Israel, my edits are non-abusive, only one is somewhere were you commented, is there an issue with that one? If so, I apologise.

• places where I commented after you (but didn’t follow you, to the best of my knowledge)

1. Noticeboard on EI, a prior area of editing where I followed another user (who has not complained)

2. ITN, followed another user (no complaints), the majority of your comments are after mine and not where I commented. However, that is where I jumped from (because I thought you made good points despite disagreeing, not out of any hostility)

• places where you commented after me

1. Mondoweiss

2. NGO Monitor

(both edits appear to be fine, no reason for a grudge from my side)

As I said, no offence or harm meant. I sincerely apologise for any distress it may have caused. FortunateSons (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and may I ask who I remind you of? Is it a current editor, or someone who left? If it is someone current and you a concerned about policy violations regarding sockpuppeting, I am happy to have someone CheckUser me FortunateSons (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

Please stop removing the source, there is an active challenge to the close and your editing while that is ongoing is, in my view, WP:FAIT style editing. If the challenge fails then whatever, but as of now you’re making it so somebody such as myself will have to spend hours reverting those edits. nableezy - 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

1. FAIT applies to things not currently justifiable by policy (and is also not strictly policy), the RFC on EI is, so that is not technically applicable here.

However, I appreciate your comment and am of course willing to engage with the spirit of it, so:

2. My editing pre-dates your Noticeboard, and I am generally only removing edits that would not be useable for generally unreliable either (generally related to Israel, Palestine, BDS and BLP, so cases where there is a higher standard for sources), or cases where the sourcing appears questionable. I generally evaluate those case by case, including engaging on the talk pages of affected editors where I consider it to be prudent.

In many other cases, I either take no action or leave a comment on the talk pages of the subject; if you are willing, I am happy for you to engage with those in good faith by going through my edit history, and wave any rights regarding WP:Hounding when it comes to talk page entries on EI (assuming that there are no other issues with your comments). Retracted due to later interactions with the user

And lastly:

3. If you have a specific issue with one or more, I am happy to discuss it here? But preferably, I am open for you to use a dispute resolution tool of your choosing to have a decision on this, as I am sure that this is not the last time that such an issue comes up and a binding ‚case law‘ is probably beneficial to all. FortunateSons (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So far there is unanimous support for overturning the decision you are basing a huge chunk of your editing on. While that process proceeds I am asking you to refrain from adding to the burden of undoing, manually in most cases, hundreds of edits if it closes with that decision overturned. nableezy - 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

1. the support is not really unanimous, but it is the majority (for now)

2. my edits are mostly things still covered by 3, such as not generally removing subject matter experts (a valid point you made in your vote, btw.)

3. I am happy to pause while you pursue a dispute resolution measure of your choosing, which I consider a reasonable baseline if you believe that my actions violate the letter or spirit of said policy. If you don’t, I will stick with my interpretation, which is that my edits are still permitted.FortunateSons (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#FAIT removals by FortunateSons. nableezy - 15:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I respond to the comment on the talk page on Hajo Meyer in the affirmative? It’s an improvement imo FortunateSons (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and is there an admin noticeboard you can leave a marker/link at? Just so we get a resolution in a reasonable time frame? FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As I've noted here, subject-matter experts (here Joseph Massad) are considered differently from generic editorial material, per WP:EXPERTSPS, and different considerations apply when weighing such sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re right, I missed that , thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ditto Sarah Irving on Sahar Khalifeh. As noted at RSN, EI has a high volume of guest writing from experts, so it pays to carefully check the authors. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually found her, but I believe that this at best tangentially related to her field of study, which is historical and not contemporary. I believe that this is the area of her activism and journalism, but not of her academic work. Do you disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EBS Symposium, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BCG and BNP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on SFR user talk page

I noticed that there is a lengthy discussion on the SFR talk page, titled "What are the rules regarding this?" I clicked through and am having trouble ascertaining just what specific edits are at issue in your initial post. Can you please elaborate, perhaps in the discussion itself so that people arriving late can figure out what sparked this situation? Thanks in advance, Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I can only summarise what I perceive to be the issue, but to try to be as neutral and fair as possible: There was a depreciation of Electronic Intifada, which was later overturned. Before that (and partially during the discussion regarding overturning) I removed a significant amount of the citation from EI, based on my good-faith belief that this depreciated (and now gunrel) source is not generally usable in specific areas, mostly I/P and BLP, unless an exception applies (you can find the discussion above). When asked to stop, I stated that I would if instructed by an admin or dispute resolution tool, and have done so once that happened.

Now that the decision is overturned, that user is broadly reversing all removals of EI. While some reversals may be justified based on the new ruling, I would like them to justify inclusion with arguments and to comply with the standards set forth for the inclusion of a gunrel source. They believe that my removals are no longer justified by policy, as the depreciation was revoked, and that the non-depreciation is a sufficient argument for inclusion and therefore continue to revert the edits without a specific argument.

That being said, you do have to read the discussions on both their and my talk page and the linked discussion, otherwise you only have my POV.

I hope that helped, please feel free to reach out if you need further information or if you believe that a part of my description is inaccurate or incomplete, just so it remains readable for those uninvolved. FortunateSons (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Does that answer your question? FortunateSons (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been away for a while and am trying to catch up. Yes, typically sources that are generally unreliable are just that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome! Just to clarify on the place of discussion: I brought it up on their user page, they requested I don’t do that, and an uninvolved admin ist generally the first (and in this case, probably only) step of the escalation letter towards a measure of dispute resolution.

The discussions on EC on the other hand is out of place. But it wasn’t my idea and was quite interesting, so… FortunateSons (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, if you feel there is a user conduct issue you can bring it up at WP:AE. But I have a hunch that it will either go nowhere, boomerang against you (whether warranted or not is immaterial) and/or be kicked back to the talk pages of the articles involved. So why not just cut to the chase and bring it back to the talk pages of the articles involved? Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin can be an adequate remedy when it comes to conduct, but yes, the likelihood of success is limited. I already left talk page comments in some places, I’m just not looking to do it 50 or so times. FortunateSons (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this an issue in that many articles? That's quite a bit. I would suggest, if you haven't done so already, listing somewhere (maybe the discussion segment of the RS/N discussion?) precisely where this has been an issue, where EI is used and is disputed. Better you do that where the most people can see it. Here and only here may not be optimal. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, to quote the user “all your edits based on it being deprecated are invalid and I am going through them to restore them”. I’m not sure if they are being selective at all, if they are, it will probably not be as many, if they restore them all and I challenge all of the ones on my to do list as well, we may get into the 3 digits if we are unlucky. Unfortunately, building consensus in either direction for a general policy is probably not going to be particularly successful based on my past experience in this area of editing, so if these reverts are permitted, it will just be a very slow and tedious process.

This process would have been significantly faster if they actually explained their reverts beyond “not depreciated”, but apparently such edits are permitted and not actionable, so this will just be a very slow exercise in consensus building. FortunateSons (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. That clarifies matters. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. It’s just very frustrating, because some of the reverts have a point and some don’t, so I get to ask for every single one when quick comment would save us all hours of our time FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Olivia Frank (intelligence officer) has been accepted

Olivia Frank (intelligence officer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GnocchiFan (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @GnocchiFan :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations! ProfGray (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, also for your contribution to the article! FortunateSons (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop.

The closer did NOT forbid the use of Mondoweiss in BLPs. Nothing actually changed about how we use it. What you're doing now looks like an end run around trying to depreciate it. If you want to remove the refs you need to actually explain why the use is problematic. Please self revert any revert any removals that left lines unreferenced unless you can do so, or I will. Parabolist (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the wall of text, but as this might come up again, it’s nice to be somewhat thorough:

1. Intent: I am not trying to depreciate it by removing all or most uses, I am just following the changed RfC in combination with existing policies and removing uses from BLP unless I consider them covered by ‚great caution‘. Leaving a bad source for BLP is undesirable and should be avoided, and leaving a is not generally inappropriate in such cases; I rarely directly remove content unless it was highly problematic per se. The removal of problematic BLP uses was part of the purpose of the RfC, in the words of it’s creator: […]I'd rather get consensus before I start ripping citations to it out of BLPs.
2. Conduct: I leave accurate and polite edit summaries, elaborating where relevant. I also engage on talk pages, and left talk pages edits in cases that I considered less clear. No other conduct issues seem to be apparent, and evaluation of sources used is standard practice. On that note, please do not cast aspersions, as you did both in this comment and this edit summary, and AGF instead. In the long term, I plan (and others will, if I don’t get to it fast enough) to either add citations or remove the content, but leaving a potentially defamatory, hostile or unreliable source instead of just removing it and leaving a cn is definitely not mandated after the close. By the way, many of my edit summaries do point to specific issues, most importantly the mix of BLP and contentious topic and the implied lack of (noticed) specific reason for inclusion. WP:BLPFRINGE is applicable where relevant.
3. Close content: this is wrong. No substantial changes were made except the rules regarding BLP, logically meaning that the BLP rules were changed, which is (IMO) an adequate justification for evaluating uses that are potentially problematic, an issue that is quite clearly given where you reverted my removal (BLP, Hunger strike, semi-current conflict). You can make an argument in that complies with „great caution“ if you find one, and I’m happy to engage on the talk page discussion (please ping me if you do so), or you can just add an RS, both of which would be a productive way to address the issue you state to be having. Relevant change per close: There is a consensus that Mondoweiss is biased and that content cited to it should be evaluated and, when appropriate, presented as per WP:RSEDITORIAL and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. No further consensus as to its underlying reliability emerged. This appears to be, more or less, a community endorsement of the status quo for Mondoweiss at WP:RSP.

FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the Mondoweiss close has been contested on the grounds that the discussion did NOT establish that MW should not be used for BLP's. Therefore please cease your removals of this source until this is resolved Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I will do so until it is resolved, per the precedent on EI. Am I right in the assumption that I am free to participate in the ANI? FortunateSons (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For being a much-needed reminder that, even when discussing the most controversial of topics, and even in an environment where emotions are running high, it's still possible to have an insightful and respectful disagreement.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Figured it'd only be fair to return the favor :) Even though we didn't see eye to eye, I think we at least understood each other's perspectives well enough that we could see how someone could reasonably come to different conclusions, and when the subject of discussion is quite possibly the most divisive subject in the world I think that level of mutual understanding is something worth celebrating. Your calm tone, patience, and willingness to assume good faith really stood out in a positive way.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it's my first one! :)

To have this sort of discussion, which remained civil and fair despite the topic (and let's be honest, unlike much of the RfC), is something that is often missing from this topic area. I felt like you understood my arguments for their sake and not merely to have a counter, and am really glad that my tone and conduct came across the way I wanted to. In addition, your arguments helped me to better understand and empathise with your position, and your tone, style of argumentation and the quality of your arguments made the discussion not only worth having, but also enjoyable. Your ability to disagree in such a respectful way deeply impressed me, and was a good reminder how we should all aspire to conduct ourselves. FortunateSons (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation removals

I don't know if you're doing these automatically or what -- surely this is a tedious task at any rate -- but I think you should consider using the actual {{citation needed}} template, instead of just having that be the text in the ref tag. For example, this diff -- it ends up needing to be fixed later in an AWB run. If you're doing these all manually, I guess it is what it is, but if you're using a predefined string for the replacement, I would recommend {{citation needed}} over citation needed. jp×g🗯️ 00:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I think the optimal solution would be to comment out the original citation, which tends to make it easier to re-reference things from bad sources. That is to say, an article in the Daily Crapheap might consist entirely of original reporting, or it might say something like "This story was originally broken by the Reliable Times", in which case you can go there and click the link and cite the Reliable Times article. It's not a big deal either way, since it's in the page history anyway, but if I am trying to find a better citation it usually helps to be able to see what the old one was, even if it's from a bad source. jp×g🗯️ 00:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear @JPxG, thank you for the nice message, I hope correcting that wasn’t too tedious.

I’m afraid I’m doing it manually, whatever that says about the way I use my time. :)

In this particular case, the source was later re-closed as 3, so this is less of an issue anyway.

Regarding your first comment, I have already started using in most cases, but will start doing it in all cases, thank you.

Regarding commenting out, I hadn’t thought about that before. Should I just put it into the edit summary, or what would be the way that makes it easiest for the next person? FortunateSons (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Electronic Intifada isn't actually deprecated, so there is no actual reason to be expunging it without thought, and yes, definitely without leaving a citation needed tag. Where the source is linked in multiple points with a ref name, these removals are especially problematic as they are liable to create ref errors, and yes, bot chaos. If a source is unreliable, the best option, if you are not interested in engaging with the content is to tag it as "better sources needed". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This is quite bad. Dozens of references were removed in January based on either a false premise, misleading edit summary or lack of understanding of the difference between GUNREL and deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s none of those: the source was depreciated, the close was later successfully challenged; you can see the discussion above, I paused upon request at AN during the challenge and did not continue after the close with the same style of removal. As far as I recall, we already discussed this back then, no?FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foodspring has been accepted

Foodspring, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthias Goldmann has been accepted

Matthias Goldmann, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mdann52 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply

[4] - I think that for the first part of the RfC, the 3:1 description was fair, but the "strength of the argument" was not. To say that the source was generally unreliable, one should show it was not just biased, but publish incorrect information on a regular basis. I believe this is not at all the case for this source after looking at the entire discussion. That's why I think the RfC should not be closed "by parts". Saying that, I will not make AN posting given my previous negative experience with administrative discussions, and I do not feel myself sufficiently familiar with this subject, so whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page :)

The 3/1 description if mostly accurate, but it’s !votes for a reason, and the question of mismatch between vote and content is something to look at, though of course by someone less involved than me.

I agree that a joint close would be beneficial, but based on the nature of this RfC (and its excessive length), I’m not sure how likely it is that someone will volunteer hours or days of the life.

I might open one, but I’m pretty busy right now, so I can’t promise anything. FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not ask you or anyone to submit such request. But if anyone does, this should be based on the guidelines: #1 - no (after looking very quickly), #2 - no; #3 - no; #4 - no. Based on that, this is not a good case to submit to AN. Unfortunately, there is no official "review" board for RfC closings, such as one we have for AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course, any review submitted by me would be only in my name and by my own free will.

I think it might be a promising case for AN strongly based on 1 (particularly the quote on top of their talk page) and 2, but we will see if that is convincing.

A review board for RfCs would be a cool idea, has that been suggested at the village pump? FortunateSons (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, second part of #2 might apply here ("The outcome is a close call or likely to be controversial"). Saying that Anti-Defamation League was a "generally unreliable source" is controversial. #1 - you need some diffs to prove your point, and I do not see them. And again, I did not ask for anything, just checked RSNB and commented because this is an obvious cases of an RfC that needs to be closed as a whole by experienced admins. Personally, I do not care if it will be closed as a "generally unreliable source" or however. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good point. Yes, I might do it, but only of my own free will.

I think a proper close by an admin might be good even with the same outcome, simply with the function of having a clearer and more detailed close for the future, particularly if referenced in a discussion about the topic. FortunateSons (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This whole thing was ripe for closing a month ago. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

100%, I think that’s the only thing that everyone will agree about. FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Just saw that you’re taking a break. I hope everything works out, and best of luck with whatever it is! FortunateSons (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Work in progress for discussion

Caption text

Name	Month	Profession	Source	(English or autotranslated and verified) example statement
Kittel	October 2023	History Prof	Big local newspaper	No, Israel’s military response is not genocide – regardless of whether one uses narrower or broader definitions of the term.
Ambos	December 2023	“ professor of criminal law and head of the Department of Foreign and International Criminal Law”	Hard to group into a clear category	Bartov chooses his words carefully. He warns of possibly impending genocide without claiming it is happening already. Some statements of certain Israeli policymakers are indeed worrisome. Yet, while they may be relevant for proving the necessary specific intent, they cannot automatically be attributed to the persons who are taking the military decisions.
Wiese	January 2024	“research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Chair of European Law, Public International Law and Public Law”	tabloid	“but is usually very difficult to prove”; “The destruction of the group must be the sole aim of the perpetrator”; under international law, there is a right to self-defence
Platt	January 2024	social sciences professor with a focus on genocide research	Audio episode by the local npr equivalent	“Genocide really doesn’t fit here/does not fit at all” (from title)
Schabas	January 2024	left-leaning weekly newspaper	professor of international law	"I am fairly certain that South Africa will win on the interim measures - but not that it will win on the main issue in four or five years' time."; "I based my statement, which I made back in October, on the statements that Israel was essentially besieging Gaza and denying it food, medicine, drinking water and electricity. I said that this alone was enough to indicate a serious risk of genocide. In my view, that risk has become even greater."
Herik	January 2024	professor of international public law	university website	That is a claim that is very difficult to prove, because you have to prove that Israel is acting with the specific purpose of exterminating the Palestinians.
Cohen and Shany	January 2024	Just Security	Law professors	The raising of even more serious charges – such as the commission of genocide, the “crime of crimes” – requires an even higher commitment to factual analysis, which should include all relevant facts, including those “inconvenient” to whoever is making such claims. Many of the allegations made in this regard, including those found in the recent South African application to the ICJ appear to fall short of this standard. Still, we do consider the South African application as potentially useful in drawing more attention to the positive obligations of the State of Israel to suppress incitement to genocide and to address potentially genocidal statements made in public by Israeli influencers and politicians.
Walter	January 2024	professor of international law	Reputable online legal publication	"Although the high number of civilian deaths and the enormous material damage are horrific, they do not necessarily prove an intent to commit genocide. For example, the repeated calls for the civilian population to leave certain parts of the area or the observance of the obligation to warn and set a deadline before withdrawing protection from a civilian hospital because it is being used outside its humanitarian purpose to commit acts harmful to the enemy speak against such an intent."
Burke-White	February 2024	professor of international law	university website	It should be noted that genocide is an incredibly difficult crime to prove. Genocide refers to any of a series of acts – such as the killing or the transfer of children—undertaken with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” Historically, courts have struggled to prove the relevant intent, which is not just murder but a concerted policy to destroy a people as a whole. For South Africa to win this case, it will need to find and provide evidence that the Israeli government’s intent was not merely to prevent attacks such as those of October 7 or to degrade the capability of Hamas, but rather to annihilate the Palestinian people as a whole.
Feldmann	March 2024	professor of international law	meh, but original is good	"The charge of genocide depends on intent. And Israel as a state is not waging the Gaza war with the intent to destroy the Palestinian people."
Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams	March 2024	professor and scientific staff	blog of peace research institute	“Whether the ICJ will classify Israeli violence as genocide cannot be answered at this point in time.”
Goldmann	April 2024	professor of international law	leftist daily paper	“The law professor does not expect a clear conviction of Israel in the South Africa-Israel case, nor a clear dismissal of the lawsuit.” "According to Article II of the Convention, a breach occurs when an actor implements the intention to destroy a group of people in whole or in part by killing, injuring or restricting the living conditions of said group. In the case of Israel, there is no "smoking gun" that clearly proves such an intention, explained Goldmann. Statements by Israeli politicians in the media are "non-authoritative sources""
Talmon	April 2024	professor of international law	newspaper of record	” This is clearly a war crime. But not genocide.”
Sassoli and Diggelmann	May 2024	International Law Professors	Largest electronic media house of German-speaking Switzerland	“«Certain statements by Israeli politicians were genocidal». There was talk of extermination. «But the actions of the Israeli army are, in my opinion, directed against Hamas and not against the entire population»”; “He does not believe that the International Court of Justice will find a generational[sic]intent to commit genocide in the South Africa v. Israel case.”
Hartwig and Müller	May 2024	professor of international law	digital news partnering with big newspapers	“I ultimately do not see sufficient grounds for genocide if one takes the legal term seriously.”; “Even if individual actions by the Israeli armed forces can be described as war crimes, they do not [necessarily - added by me] at the same time constitute genocide.”
Khan	June 2024	professor of international law	big public broadcaster	“The defining element is above all the intent to destroy, which, however, can currently hardly be proven by the Israeli leadership”

Notes:

a) credit for creating the original list:

b) WP:EXPERTSPS applies, so unless there are concerns about falsified quotes, the source is secondary here

c) any translation should be scrutinised, and mistakes will be corrected inside the table once found

d) now written out, the categories get blurry. I have my own opinion, but will leave it to the others on the details

FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a list I pulled together for a previous discussion similar to this, based on sources that appeared in the article:

1. - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
2. - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
3. - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
4. - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
5. - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
6. - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
7. - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
8. - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
9. - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
10. - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
11. - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
12. - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
13. - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
14. - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
15. - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
16. - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
17. - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
18. - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
19. - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
20. - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
21. - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
22. - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
23. - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
24. - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
25. - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide

I've removed the countries who held stated positions from the initial list, as they are out of scope for this list.

These are some more, not included in the previous list:

1. 60 scholars, including some who have since published individual opinions/papers - Contending Modernities - Risk of genocide, with incitement to genocide
2. Verena Buser - Jewish Journal - not genocide
3. Omar Shahabudin McDoom - Journal of Genocide Research - No position stated, but questions by we haven't seen statements from some Genocide scholar institutions and groups warning of a risk, and denouncing aspects of the violence in the Israeli assault on Gaza

There are then the half-dozen new articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research I have yet to read.

While these next two are historians, the fact they published their opinion in Quillete, means we shouldn't really be using them for the article. I included them in the previous list, as someone had previously added them to the article, and I tried to bolster the "not genocide" view as much as I could at that time:

1. - Norman J. W. Goda - Quillette - Not genocide
2. - Jeffrey C. Herf - Quillette - Not genocide

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Do you want to add them to the list, or keep them separate for now? FortunateSons (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m done with the quotes; do you think that any of those are inaccurate or misleading?

I need to sleep now, but will continue once I’m awake. Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Kittel – Not genocide, can't access full article, so I'm not sure if the "broad or narrow sense" comment is attributed to Kittel. Mentions Germany’s special considerations [see bias] when it comes to considering genocides due to WW2.

Ambos – Details Bartov's position from November, doesn’t really take a position, just provides various considerations necessary for a legal determination. Mentions Germany's biases with regards to supporting Israel.

Wiese – Agree on the translations of her comments. Though I do have questions on her assessment that Croatia v Serbia found that genocide requires the "sole aim", as I can't see such argument in the ruling, (I assume this stems from the "only inference" statement) though I am not a lawyer so I may be missing something.

Platt – Not been able to listen, but no issue on the title translation. For inclusion, I'd want a transcription of the actual audio.

Schabas – We already have Schabas' opinions detailed in the article from English language sources. This would be a re-iteration essentially on his opinions a couple of months after the source we have cited.

Herik – No issues

Cohen & Shany – No issues in the summation. Lots of issues with the arguments, including from the critique of legalism, but that is by-the-by for this.

Walter – agree with translation, again issues with arguments, but again legalism.

Burke-White – Summation of opinion is fine.

Feldmann – Translation fine (also agree with much of WSWS' commentary to him)

Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams – Translation fine, some interesting commentary on various actions, so may be able to add more from this, or at least have it as a citation throughout various parts of the article.

Goldmann – I would have thought you may pull on the "smoking gun" comments. Translation is fine. Again, other commentary from Goldmann on some of the other legal cases presented in the article could (and probably should) be included in the article.

Hartwig and Müller – Translation is fine, may need to have an explainer on the added "necessarily", for people who will question it. I'd prefer a different source than Watson for it, as the commentary Watson provides is, poor in my opinion.

Khan – I would want the time frame of his comment included, "bislang", which I understand to be "so far"/"until now".

Talmon – Like with Kittel, we really want the full articles, but the translation of the little available is fine.

Sassoli and Diggelmann – Translations fine, I'm just confused by the use of the term "generational" in Diggelmann’s comment.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! I will finish the table and make an effort to dig up archive links for what is inaccessible, and try to fix what you brought up. I don't know what generational is supposed to mean, it's either swiss german or an error in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Paywall removal for you:

Kittel

Talmon FortunateSons (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I have addressed everything except the transcript (which I will probably have to do manually). Are there any issues I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts. The archives are erroring for me at the moment, I can dig around on them properly later though. If you don't mind, I will begin adding the list I provided in the formatting of the table this evening as well. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course, thank you for the kind words and your effort! FortunateSons (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m going ahead and adding the current version while it’s permitted, you are welcome to update it there as well :) FortunateSons (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have allowed others to make changes to the version in the discussion. You’re welcome to directly add sources there, or add them here, and I will help move them later :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll add to the table directly there, I can't promise it will all be done quickly, but I'll do as best I can. Once the 'discussion' (seems too civil a name for it with how heated it has gotten) is over, I'll copy the table onto the head of the talk page, so it's will be easily hat hand for reference for the inevitable future discussions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan. I’m pretty busy over the next week or so too, so no hurry from my end. FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Which of these, if any, are published in peer-reviewed journals? I'm not seeing how (non-specialist) newspapers quoting scholars in one sentence or two, is equivalent to detail in-depth and scholarly studies of the subject? Pardon my intrusion here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, the original question was whether or not there was significant disagreement among scholars whether

or not this is a genocide. Respected professors saying that it isn’t (or isn’t clearly) is such disagreement. FortunateSons (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A source in Hebrew: Haaretz in Hebrew, Professor Daniel Blatman, Holocaust historian (left leaning), November 2023:

עצם העובדה שישראל והפלסטינים מנהלים ביניהם מלחמה עקובה מדם כבר ארבעה דורות, והם מבצעים האחד בשני פשעי7 אומרת כי בעזה באוקטובר 2023 התחיל ג'נוסייד

The mere fact that Israel and the Palestinians have been waging a bloody war between them for four generations, and they are both committing war crimes and hair-raising acts of violence, still does not mean that a genocide began in Gaza in October 2023 Vegan416 (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you speak and read Hebrew? Mine isn't even close to good enough for this, but I think additional Hebrew sourcing may be good for the article and this and future discussions, if you have the time to create something FortunateSons (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Hebrew is my mother tongue. I'm on it (as time permits) Vegan416 (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no time limit here, particularly looking at the ongoing discussion on the closers talk page, this might take a while FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Another Israeli source (in English this time):

Israeli Newspaper site, Professor Dina Porat, Holocaust historian: "University lecturers in Europe, U.S. claim Israel commits genocide and ethnic cleansing without a foundation in reality, leaving historical study without a factual basis and only with a subverted version of events". Vegan416 (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 we don't mention Porat by name, but do include hers and other Holocaust scholars' response to Bartov's opinion in the article. The article is a Haaretz article by Frilling et al., 28 November 2023. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hipal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal, that’s nice. Would you be willing to articulate in which way you arguing against a 4/1 (with three highly experienced editors disagreeing with you (@Sean.hoyland,@Starship.paint and @Super Goku V)) consensus for inclusion using arguments that were found to be unconvincing is in line with policy, and not a violation of WP:STONEWALL and WP:IDHT? Particularly considering the discussion directly above that one, where (including but not limited to) @Jjj1238@Tobby72 and @Ïvana found your removal to not be in line with policy. Apologies for the pings, but I didn’t want to talk about involved editors behind their back while the second discussion was ongoing. FortunateSons (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. I suggest you reread WP:CON, WP:BLP, WP:TALK, and WP:AGF. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I encourage Hipal to start editing in the WP:PIA topic area. Given the frequency with which editors encounter disruptive editing there, it's the ideal training environment for editors to reduce their disruption recognition error rate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus isn’t a vote, but arguing against the policy-based arguments of half a dozen experienced editors is a strong indication that it isn’t with you. I appreciate you citing more policy, but actually making an argument would be helpful here. FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the policy-based arguments. I've pointed out that editors appear to be ignoring or don't understand policy. But this isn't the place for such discussion.

I'm here to try to prevent you from being blocked or banned for your behavior. If you're not interested in discussing your behavior, then we're done. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate, I can see a lot of policy-based arguments (some I agree with and some don’t, but definitely policy), and I’m pretty new here.

I appreciate your concern for my record. @ScottishFinnishRadish, am I in violation of policy? I’m happy to disengage if I am, but I’m pretty confident that I’m not.

The discussions taking place are here and at Talk:Bella Hadid. FortunateSons (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, it looks as if you might be confusing disagreement with your interpretation of policy with disruptive editing.

You should all just get that RFC going. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re probably right about the RfC, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t think that templating an experienced editor is that beneficial, Hipal. I would suggest just regularly talking it out. starship.paint (RUN) 23:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We disagree. When a block or ban is getting close, formal notices can be helpful, sometimes necessary. --Hipal (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to either take this to ANI (or more appropriately, AE) or drop the stick, referencing allegedly imminent sanctions (as you also did here) is at best unproductive unless you are able to point to specific misconduct. FortunateSons (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: - alright, reading the discussion, it's clear that you thought FortunateSons was being disruptive (dismissive of policies) and a sanction was close. In my view though, I really don't see a huge level of disruption by FortunateSons at Talk:Bella Hadid that warrants any sanction. Perhaps you can consult a random admin for their opinion. starship.paint (RUN) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I prefer WP:AE to ANI. If the behavior continues, I'll put together a list of diffs and post them here for another chance at avoiding such escalation. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

An admin has already suggested "it looks as if you might be confusing disagreement with your interpretation of policy with disruptive editing." Also, see Law of holes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

See this talk page. --Hipal (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I see this talk page. I see the article talk page. There is no disruption. A way to resolve this kind of situation where there is conflict is to reduce the influence of individual editors by increasing the population size via an RfC. That is what should happen in this case. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP CT notice

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. nableezy - 20:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

German wiki that may be of interest

Don't know if you'd actually be interested, but as you are a fluent German speaker and have knowledge of the situation of the question in Germany thought this might be on interest.

Someone basically did a complete translation of the Gaza genocide article into German for the German wiki, and they currently have a deletion discussion open for the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I’m currently incredibly busy, but might get to it at some point, as it’s definitely of interest. Having said that, I’m primarily on en.wiki for good reason, one of which is that the German-language discussions on such topics tend to be incredibly tedious, and have a less-than positive view of the article, so I can neither promise participation nor alignment with your view. It’s quite possible that I end up at a scrap-and-start-over view.

Sincerly, FortunateSons (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I expected you to disagree with me on it, but you have shown yourself to be a very well read contributor, so your input I could only see as a benefit to the discussion overall. I hope that the busyness in the real world isn't too stressful for you. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate the compliment, and am impressed by the integrity of specifically inviting an editor that is likely to disagree.

I hope so, thanks. FortunateSons (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion ended before I actually had the time to write up a proper argument, but I nevertheless appreciate the link. On that note, it seems to have received attention in one of the usual places, but the engagement is somewhat limited, so let’s hope the same can be said about affiliated disruptions. FortunateSons (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Diet culture has been accepted

Diet culture, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephanie Nur (September 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephanie Nur and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, FortunateSons! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to be clear, don’t they meet general notability requirements anyway? FortunateSons (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

They may slightly meet WP:NACTOR but we need more sources. For example, the 1st source if from an Instagram archive, others are from: www.oe24.at, www.film.at, Polture, and film starts.de. We need sources that meets WP:RS. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll look for some, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back to you so late. I’m not completely sure how nactor defines significant, but I believe that her role in Lioness obviously clears the bar. However, multiple requires two or more. I would say that her role in the movie “Risse im Beton” (with the movie being very likely notable, and having an article in the German wiki) is likely to meet that requirement, with her being listed in the credits on the relevant sites as a named role ([5], which is owned by a large media company and I would therefore presume reliable; [6] and source 6 below). Additionally, her role in the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 (notable) is listed repeatedly as well [7][8][9][and source 6]. In addition, an argument can be made that her temporary role on 1883 was at least significant enough to report[10]. I think this clearly fulfils WP:NACTOR, what do you think?

Newspaper sources with one or more mention (including passing) include (but aren’t limited to):

Variety

Variety (listing for Supporting Drama Actress)

NYT (for lioness)

Deadline (listed for role and representation)

Economic times (listed for role, same upcoming movie)

L-Mag (small community magazine, but probably ok)

Essence (for lioness)

Collider FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stadionverbots-Decision has been accepted

Stadionverbots-Decision, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Diet culture

See also: Diet culture

I'm going to make a brief, but detailed roadmap of how this DYK can pass. I will update it in an hour or so. I'm doing this because I think my last attempt was too ambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I’ll try to fix grammar/style issues during, I hope you don’t mind? FortunateSons (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do so. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to start moving things along and moving towards closure on this DYK. Some questions:

• Why does the first sentence in the lead need three sources? I pointed you to Harrison 2019, which is a single source that describes all of this (and I left you the full quote on the DYK review page). You don't have to use it, of course, but since we have good sources that summarize this info, it doesn't make sense to add three sources. Also, please get in the habit of formatting the sources (author, date, title, publication) so that editors can evaluate them.

More in a bit. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm fixing the source issues now by adding the authors and publication names. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that, thank you. I’ll refrain from making any changes for now to avoid an edit conflict FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Too late! I'm done. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing is complete. Given how important intuitive eating is to this topic, you should make an effort to take it out of the see also and move it into the body. Not required for DYK of course, but it looks bad sitting by itself like that when it needs to be merged into the subject. Also, you're going to want to differentiate this subject from others like Health at Every Size. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll find a spot for it, probably best placed in the history section, if I can find a source? FortunateSons (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I like the Harrison quote as the citation (page 12 in my digital version), and would straightforwardly replace the sources currently used with it. I believe it covers all of the content, or do I need a second citation? (Such as Digital Mental Health Interventions: Differences in Diet Culture Intervention Framing. Von: Fitterman-Harris HF, Davis GG, Bedard SP, Cusack CE, Levinson CA, International journal of environmental research and public health, 1660-4601, 2023 Dec 23, Bd./Jhrg. 21 (on page 1))? FortunateSons (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Do it any way you prefer. One way I personally do this in articles is to bundle the citations using an asterisk or bullet. That way, the material is supported by a single citation with pointers to others if needed. To see an example of this style, see citation numbers 10 and 16 in the article Rooms by the Sea and look at the markup in edit mode. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Note, it might be instructive to lean heavily on a source like Jovanovski & Jaeger, as they are probably the most neutral and authoritative overview on the subject. From there, you can go on to cite the authorities they discuss in more detail if you like. My point is that if you use the Jovanovski & Jaeger framework as your starting point, you will encounter less problems when other editors review this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. Is there a way to have the ref name created within such a footnote, or do I have to do it outside? FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a few different ways to do it, including ones that allow you to use anchors to cheat, but I would just do it on the outside for the moment. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding hooks: I like the more nuanced Harrison citation, but I’m not sure how to best hook it, perhaps: “that the 19th-century belief linking fatness to blackness is now considered part of diet culture?” or “that the 19th-century belief that fatness is an indication of savagery is now considered part of diet culture?” I would cite it to Harrison (p. 22), and avoid the citation to Strings. If this hook is acceptable, I would obviously include that content into the relevant section of the article body as well. Thank you ;) FortunateSons (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently thinking about this problem. Before we resolve it, can you take a look at this recent source? Thank you.. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks quite interesting, particularly for a citation in the reception, particularly the benefits of the different framings/names. Is there a particular use that you would suggest?

Unfortunately, I don’t have the right scientific background for any in-depth understanding beyond that of a layman FortunateSons (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood, but that's not what I meant. I meant, look at how they are defining diet culture. They are paraphrasing Jovanovski & Jaeger as I recommended. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

FortunateSons, I would encourage you to play around with it, but try to focus on the subject of diet culture. Some people might look at this and think it is coatrack-y. We know the racial component is tied into the social stigma of obesity and diet culture discusses this stigma. But as Zaragoza 2024 points out, this isn't limited to black women, or even black men, but all men and women, with Zaragoza discussing the men and women of the Latino community in particular and focusing more on the problem of homogenization of diets. Jovanovski & Jaeger frame this overarching problem as as a "moral hierarchy of bodies fuelled by health myths" based on "systemic and structural inequalities". I wonder if your hook would benefit from widening its perspective, to include all men and women, or rather, to focus more on diet culture as a general topic. I just made my way through Strings book and she doesn't discuss diet culture anywhere, so I see this as slightly problematic. This leads me to thinking we should discard the focus on String for the moment and find a hook that zeroes in on the subject at hand. I realize this might not be what you want to hear, and you shouldn't take it as gospel, but just consider what I'm saying for a moment and sleep on it. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that’s definitely a valid view, and I would be very open to it. I would sleep on it (as it’s quite late where I am) and get back to you? FortunateSons (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Quick question: the article is accessible through the wiki library for me, isn’t it for you? FortunateSons (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I needed a hard copy to reference. I don't have access to TWL because I got into an argument with an admin on Wikinews who banned me, thereby invalidating my subsription to TWL. I have a copy of the article now. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry to hear, that really sucks. It’s good that you have a copy now! FortunateSons (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that a potential hook is partially supported on p. 7: For women of colour, diet culture was said to be reinforced through intersecting systems of patriarchy and racism, and further fuelled by capitalist systems that marketed the thin, white female body as a universal ideal. As long as a proposed hook sticks closely to a paraphrased version of this, and it appears in the body, I would support it, as it is tied directly into diet culture by the authors. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, and will write it once I’m awake. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder if it is problematic, however, since it is based on the results of a survey of anti-diet participants. I wonder how that could be worded accurately. Let's talk later. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand this concern, but considering the authors are discussing it in their own voice (as well as below: „A focus on patriarchy, racism, and capitalism is often prevalent in the work of feminist and fat activists“ and „We found that diet culture is characterised by a conflation of weight and health including myths about food and eating, and a moral hierarchy of bodies derived from patriarchal, racist, and capitalist forms of domination.”), I would probably characterize it as derived from the survey participants, but as the authors own evaluation. FortunateSons (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Make it so! Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of that both scholars and activists believe that diet culture is often intertwined with racism and other forms of prejudice?” as a ‘safe’ hook, as that one can almost indisputably be cited to Harrison and J&J? It’s a bit less flashy compared to the original, but it avoids the coatrack concerns IMO. Or perhaps something along those lines making an argument regarding a “intersectional” approach to diet culture, as the term is used by J&J? What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you are on top of this, and I'm impressed! Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going offline for a while, so ping me when you have added new hooks to the DYK page. I think we are very close to finishing this up and moving on to the next step. Great job! Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do that tomorrow, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, I have added two hooks (personally preferring the first) and added the two discussed academic sources to the relevant part of the lead. Are those acceptable? Thank you for your time and patience! FortunateSons (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I am finishing up another DYK right now, and will get to yours in about an hour from now. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Don’t worry, it’s past midnight for me anyway, so no need to hurry! :) FortunateSons (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I took you up on your offer to slack. I will return to it later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting to finish review now. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. I copied this discussion to the review page in a collapsed format to preserve the paper trail. Feel free to archive or delete it here. Your choice. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I won’t add a new version of the final paragraph for now, you are right regarding the weasel words and the fact that the section is not necessary. I don’t have to do anything else with the DYK, correct?

I’m aware that this review required more of your time than it usually does, and am very grateful for your help! :) FortunateSons (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. I was surprised that many of the sources couldn't specify who coined the term circa 2010, but I'm going to have another look as I find that odd. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s an interesting question, please let me know if you find something! FortunateSons (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Stadionverbot Decision

See also: Stadionverbot Decision

Do you also want me to take a look at the DYK for the Stadionverbot Decision? If you want a different reviewer, that's ok. Just let me know. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You were a great reviewer, no objection from me. It is exclusively based on German sources, just as a fair warning, but if you are ok with that, I would appreciate a second review as well! FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Note, you have external links in the see also section. You'll either want to move those to the bottom in an external link section or format them into full citations for a further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, will do. FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a stray "A" at the end of the "Impact" section. Also headings are generally lowercase on en, such as "Legal proceedings", not "Legal Proceedings". Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please use bullets (also known as the asterisk) before each external link. Like this:

• Link1
• Link2

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Added them FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Try to add page numbers to the references if you are able. It's not required, but it allows reviewers to check your work. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I will do that tomorrow insofar as possible, thanks! I’ll have to check where it’s still missing, as I usually linked directly to the section (usually delineated through a section number (Rn.)).FortunateSons (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not required. Maybe something to think about in future hooks. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks; particularly for the hooks, it might be worth the effort to get my hands on a physical copy of the source. FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m concerned about the title, as it’s still at the “old” one, that is slightly different than the new version. Can I just move it, or would that be an issue for the dyk? FortunateSons (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want and let others deal with any issues. I wouldn't worry too much about it. The redirect from the DYK should work fine after the move. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you find the current hooks for Stadionverbot Decision interesting? It may not be as interesting for non-specialists. Perhaps consider adding more hooks that people outside of the legal profession can appreciate. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I do, but I’m a studying law, so that counts for nothing. I think the first one is the easiest for a layman to appreciate, based on the “speed” of the decisions.

The “best hook” would probably be something along the lines of “that a court decision about a 16-year-old’s ban from football stadiums may impact the legal obligations of social media companies in Germany” (cited to something like this, which is a less than great source and the Spiegel article for the age/alternatively the LTO article), but this sort of hook is often dangerously close to OR or weasel words, with everything being basically speculative in regards to the actual practical impact (or too in-depth for a hook). Would that be more interesting? FortunateSons (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but if there’s a way for you to explain why the hooks are interesting in the hook, that’s something to consider. I will give what you say some thought and come back to it later. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid that this would be effectively impossible within that length restriction. Would linking to Drittwirkung be helpful? The article is short, but might explain some of the issue decently well that would be a coatrack here. FortunateSons (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of “…that the German Federal Constitutional Court has decided that some powerful private companies cannot exclude customers for arbitrary reasons?” cited to the same source as the second hook? Is that more interesting? FortunateSons (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm taking a look now. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. In case we want a definition (and to not crowd the DYK), I would use the one from Towfigh, which is „Dies lässt indes nicht den Schluss zu, dass Grundrechte im Privatrecht bedeutungslos sind. Mit seiner Lüth-Entscheidung ($ 3 Rn. 31 ff.) legte das BVerfG vielmehr schon 1958 den Grundstein für die Figur der sog. mittelbaren Drittwirkung der Grundrechte. Die Grundrechte haben demzufolge maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die Auslegung und Anwendung einfachgesetzlicher Rechtsnormen (Ausstrahlungswirkung der Grundrechte, $ 1 Rn.41). Vor allem die jüngere Rechtsprechung des BVerfG - mit den Entscheidungen zu Fraport, Bierdosen-Flashmob und Stadionverbot - weitet die mittelbare Drittwirkung der Grundrechte erheblich aus. Vereinzelt wird daher gar von einer Rechtsprechungsänderung hin zu einer unmittelbaren Drittwirkung der Grundrechte gesprochen. Das BVerfG formuliert: Je nach Gewährleistungsinhalt und Fallgestaltung kann die mittelbare Grundrechtsbindung Privater einer Grundrechtsbindung des Staates vielmehr nahe oder auch gleich kommen.“ (p. 54 f.) (Google translate: However, this does not lead to the conclusion that fundamental rights are meaningless in private law. In fact, with its Lüth decision (§ 3 Rn. 31 ff.) the Federal Constitutional Court laid the foundation for the concept of the so-called indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights as early as 1958. Fundamental rights therefore have a significant influence on the interpretation and application of ordinary legal norms (radiation effect of fundamental rights, § 1 Rn.41). In particular, the more recent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court - with the decisions on Fraport, beer can flash mobs and stadium bans - significantly expands the indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights. In some cases, there is even talk of a change in case law towards a direct third-party effect of fundamental rights. The Federal Constitutional Court states: Depending on the content of the guarantee and the circumstances of the case, the indirect fundamental rights obligation of private individuals can be close to or even the same as the fundamental rights obligation of the state. FortunateSons (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Made the changes. I’m not sure about the second one, does that sound better in English? FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi FortunateSons. :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I’m pretty busy right now, but I’ll get to it as soon as I can! FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stadionverbot Decision

Hello! Your submission of Stadionverbot Decision 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I’m currently very busy, but will try my best to get to it asap! :) FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, and thank you both for taking over. I’m happy with the new hook, so no objections FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I’m slightly confused about what I was pinged for yesterday? Is any action from me required? FortunateSons (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Diet culture

On 8 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Diet culture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both scholars and activists believe that diet culture is often intertwined with racism and other forms of prejudice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diet culture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Diet culture), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Good job! Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help! FortunateSons (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Stadium ban decision

On 1 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stadium ban decision, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a German court's decision involving football stadiums may preclude Facebook from arbitrarily banning users? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stadionverbot Decision. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stadium ban decision), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)