Jump to content

User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Molly's age

Sorry, my edit summary said "look at article talk" but clearly you did after your edit. In the meantime, I'm going to keep my reversion as part of the WP:BRD cycle. If we come to a different consensus I'll gladly self-revert or have someone else do it. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jprg1966::Not a problem. I think the discussion on the article talk has assuaged my concerns regarding the different sources, so removing the tag is fine. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

corrections

Im actually pretty sure I was responsible for the correction here but all I got was an auto-reply saying it would be forwarded but we cannot notify people if we are issuing a correction for something they identified because dozens of people may have alerted on the same error. Also my Bulls fan friends were very upset with me for notifying them of the correction, since according to them Jordan's last ever shot was this shot, and anything else that happened elsewhere later must have been some fever dream. nableezy - 19:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy:Thank you for this note—the part about your Bulls friends gave me a chuckle. Unlike your run-in with the NY Times, I didn't even get an automated message from WaPo 😢. Other outlets I've requested corrections from when editing Wikipedia generally have at least gotten back to me with an automated message saying the message had been received, so I found this a bit weird. I double-checked that the message went to <corrections@washpost.com>, which is the email listed here, so I guess they just don't send automated replies for this sort of thing. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Oops, in my old age Ive forgotten honorary titles and mixed up which shot was last. Fixed. nableezy - 20:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vito Trause

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vito Trause 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. LegoBot has been dropping the ball recently so I'm copy & pasting the normal message. Etriusus (Talk) 04:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vito Trause

The article Vito Trause you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vito Trause 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 Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Turkey on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! Wiki Loves Pride in Indianapolis

Upcoming Indianapolis event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride Indy

You are invited to join us at IUPUI University Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by IUPUI University Library, and supported by the Central Indiana Community Foundation—where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at IUPUI University Library, Ashby Browsing Room.

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic & Jere

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 19:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC).)

Re: Email

Thanks for the concern. I don't think I edit the topic area frequently enough that I would ever warrant being blocked from the area, but I agree that my tone was not ideal. I don't really have much to add to the current dispute anyways, so I will probably not participate much further in the current dispute anyway. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem! Just wanted to make you aware. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you!!! — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your patience and willingness to keep the article on hold for a while until I finish those checklists. That's really kind of you! --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure! Great work on getting the article in proper shape; I know you've put a lot of work into this and I'm happy with how the article turned out. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Vito Trause

On 22 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vito Trause, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Vito Trause, who dropped out of high school during his junior year to join the United States Army in 1943, received his high school diploma at the age of 92? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vito Trause. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vito Trause), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Invited

 Invited

Hello Mhawk10: You are invited to take part in my new game show. Previously, you took part in my last YouTube-related event, so you may enjoy this one! If not, I still appreciate all you do.
Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖

–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Red-tailed hawk,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13830 articles, as of 22:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

I noticed you templated me for Eastern Europe on 10th June 2022 and previously on 12th June 2021. You are supposed to check editor's talk page before placing templates to ensure that they have not been templated in the last 12 months. May I suggest that you keep a calendar when you template people and it can provide you with a reminder so that you can continue to template them each year, but only after 12 months have passed. TFD (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: As far as I can tell, I have never alerted you the discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe, though feel free to provide a diff if I am mistaken. If you are referring to the WP:UYGHUR notice, I placed the template on your page on 20 June 2022 and previously on 12 June 2021. Is everything alright? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, I for some reason thought it was the same template. TFD (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union

Hi, I am the translator of Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union, which is now under deletion review due to User:折毛's hoax. Although the English version differed from the Chinese version created by 折毛 from the very beginning, it contained English translation of the Chinese content created by 折毛. To eliminate the impact of her content, I have validated the sources and removed all sources if they are unverifiable. Also, I have added new content backed by new reliable sources. I am thankful for your participation in the previous discussion of the deletion review, but now that the deletion review is being relisted, I am not sure whether you might want to take a look at the new, mostly re-written, and validated version of the article and express your opinion in the deletion review. I will be most grateful to your further comment regarding any potential improvement of the article and regarding your decision in the deletion review.

---HNlander (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar for excellent edits

The Closer's Barnstar
Thanks for your continued work on the RSN, RSP, and your detailed closing of the RfC on TASS! VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hello

Draft:Bitay Can you review the page? Captain388 (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement

Amendment request: Tea Party movement has been declined. You can view the archived request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122 § Amendment request: Tea Party movement. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Empty alert templates

Hi Mhawk10. I see you used {{alert}} without a specific topic. I believe you wanted to use "uyghur". Hipal (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That I did. Thank you for alerting me to this. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing three, [1][2][3], and your attempt to fix one doesn't appear to have worked [4]. Mind if I replace them with alert|uyghur notices? --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hipal,
Thank you for pointing out that the attempt to fix the notice did not work. DS/alert apparently doesn't recognize the GS/alert categories, so I subst'd the wrong template. As far as I can see, only one of the original three notices were malformed. I've corrected the remaining one.
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Nevermind. I'm not sure what happened there, but you're correct. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirecting my article?

Why'd you redirect my article War crimes in the Iraq War when I didn't even fully publish it? Fijipedia (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fijipedia: Hi! I saw that you published the page, that it contained no citations, and that there was a section in another article Iraq War#War Crimes that describes war crimes in the Iraq war. In my edit that redirected the page, I noted that the action was a blank-and-redirect. I think that it improves Wikipedia to blank-and-redirect a two-sentence unsourced content fork to the main Iraq war article when the main article contains substantially more sourced information on the subject of the content fork. One alternative would be for me to have opened a merge request to merge the content of your page into Iraq war, though I did not find that appropriate since the content of your page was already substantially in the article on the Iraq war. Another would have been turning your article into a draft, since it was not ready for the mainspace (a two-sentence unsourced article is not really substantial enough to be on Wikipedia). I don't oppose you working on a draft and using the articles for creation process on this topic, since the topic clearly notable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I'm not experienced with creating articles and I didn't even know that it was fully published, I wanted to draft. I"ll make sure to draft it this time. Fijipedia (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Flagged image

I think you just flagged an image of mine. I just had a whole back and forth today with another editor explaining that I am the full owner and copyright holder and I have given the image to creative commons share use. He reinstated it and I ask you to do the same. Hashomayim (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hashomayim: are you talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt'l.jpg? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mhawk10 yes sorry I was logged into wrong account. I'm talking about all 3 (I think) images that you flagged. If you go to the source website (my website), you will see noted at the bottom of the pg that I have given all of these to creative commons shared use. Jgavant (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP drive award

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This award is given to Mhawk10 for 18 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Red-tailed hawk,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Amanda Todd.

Why did you remove the transcript in Dutch of the video from Amanda Todd? The Dutch Wikipedia is there, because not everyone can read and understand English. Dred05m (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dred05m: The text of the message written and filmed by Amanda Todd is her estate's copyrighted work, so any derivative work (such as a translation) is copyrighted in the United States. As such, the translation itself is incompatible with the Creative Commons 3.0 unported license and the GFDL, so it being in the page would be constitute a problem for licensing. The only justification licensing-wise would be fair use, but Dutch Wikipedia could only would allow this content under a local exemption policy from WMF:Resolution:Licensing policy, which it does not appear to actually have. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Username

Hello, Red-tailed hawk,

I just saw a comment you made on a talk page a while ago and noticed your signature showed up as a different color, indicating that it is now a redirect. I thought you might have left Wikipedia but discovered that you just changed your username. So, hello, Red-tailed hawk! I myself changed my username when I found out that "Liz" was available. It'll take a bit of time before editors realize that it's still you. Have a great weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz! I've hope you have a great weekend as well! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

ARCA

I presumed at WP:ARCA that you didn't really want an opinion about EastEnders (WP:EE). Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cabayi! Thank you for making that correction. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

For over 100 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! It's not clear to me that the TreasuryDirect logo is in the public domain. Their Terms and Conditions say "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." It may have been created by a contractor or fall into another exception described by USA.gov. My understanding is that it's customary to be relatively conservative about these things on Commons, which is why I uploaded it to Wikipedia with a non-free media justification. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade: Even if it were made by a contractor, it would be well under the threshold of originality in the United States, as it is a simple text logo (see commons:Template:PD-textlogo). For logos that are similarly unoriginal: the File:Subway restaurant.svg is in the public domain and has been previously refused registration on the basis of lacking originality, as has File:San Francisco Shock (logo).svg (authority). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Red-tailed hawk! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

A Vital barnstar for you!

Vital Barnstar
Great job merging contents from other articles to Motion! It is indeed a valid way to expand articles to 30 kB :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Red-tailed hawk,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Closure for Business Insider

@FormalDude: Hello, Red-tailed hawk! I saw that you requested a closure Business Insider, but I'm a bit confused upon this closure by FormalDude (I've also pinged the editor as well). This discussion seems to imply that it might be status quo (Option 2), but the closure just says that Consensus that Business Insider's news section is generally reliable. Most concerns were with their clickbait content that is not associated with their news section. Based on my count, there's a slight numerical advantage for Option (2) apologies if I'm wrong. As far as what I can see (I might be biased, but I voted both for Option 1 and 2) both sides are strong, but IMHO option 2 is a bit stronger. I'd like to ask do you agree with this closure? Sorry if this will take much of your time, apologies for inconvenience and many thanks for your help, I could also move this discussion to RSP if needed! VickKiang (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: I've asked the closer for some clarification on their talk page. In general, that's the proper venue for discussing issues with the close. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this quick reply! VickKiang (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC Closure

Howdy, Red-tailed hawk! Came here to remind you of this RfC that you said you were closing a week ago in case you forgot. Cheers! — Golden call me maybe? 17:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Golden: I have a draft of the close written that I plan to post tonight after I proofread it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your note

Please do not post statements on my 'talk' that are unclear as to import and seem to be based on allegation. Thanks. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a standard message that editors interested in that topic get so they are made aware of the existence of the authorization for discretionary sanctions in that topic area and it does not imply any issue with your edits. You are active participation in an ITN/ERRORS discussion relating to the nexus of that GS regime, so it seems best that you (and other particularly active participants) should be made aware. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. -- Sca (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UN Human Rights Office assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

canvassing ITC

Heh. Did you see the one response I saw? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have. I must say that I was not expecting to see any direct replies to that comment before that one popped up. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

MR close for Indus Valley civilisation

Hi, I am referring to your close here. The rationale given by the OP of the MR has very little to do with the substantive reasons for the MR. You may disagree but it ultimately comes down to a distinction between "voting" and a determination of consensus based on strength of argument per WP:P&G at multiple points (eg WP:NHC for one). As pointed out in the MR, a close of the MR is no different in the application of WP:P&G. Your close of the MR would simply state: There is a rough consensus that the requested move discussion did not achieve consensus to move the page. I would observe that many of the comments made at the MR can be categorised as "personal opinion" that would be WP:DISCARDED. Consequently, I would ask that you might give a more detailed explanation as to how you have arrived at the conclusion stated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

As you're probably aware, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. While there were indeed some individuals who simply tried to re-litigate the RM discussion and did not address whether or not the close was appropriate, as well as some individuals who stated their opinion but did not provide any rationale for it, the basic arguments w.r.t. the close in the RM discussion (other than "I like it/I don't like it"-style arguments) were as follows:
  • Overturn:
    1. Several individual arguments were rooted in the notion that the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title in the event of a lack of consensus. Specifically applied to this case, the closer's statement that a page should be moved per MOS:CAPS whenever a substantial majority of sources that use the capital C cannot be decisively proven to exist is an incorrect reading of Wikipeidia's policies and guidelines and is a WP:SUPERVOTE because there is no burden of proof in any policy or guideline (or, separately, the MOS) that commands a move when there is no consensus as to whether or not the term is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. In short, the closer may have correctly stated that there was no consensus on the substantial question (whether or not a substantial majority of RS use the capital C), but screwed up in moving the page for reason of of a lack of consensus. (Some explicitly argue that, in doing so, the closer deviated substantially from the guidance at the WP:RMCI explanatory essay, while others use language similar to that in WP:TITLECHANGES and/or WP:NOCON).
    2. Some individuals argued that the close is not a faithful summary of the discussion because it does not so much as mention any of the plausible arguments made by those who opposed a page move. In short, Doug Weller, echoing a couple of others, argued that the close lacked analysis as to why the arguments from the majority were weaker than the arguments from the minority. In more detail:
      1. There were substantial reasons presented in the discussion as to why the NGRAMS analysis for capitalization was unreliable for purposes of determining whether or not the capital C is most frequently used by RS, but the closer did not address them whatsoever.
      2. Individuals in the RM discussion argued that the NGRAMS provided evidence as to why it was reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of RS capitalize the term, but the closer did not address this argument.
      3. The closer's characterization of the majority of arguments against the move as an emotive majority was both unexplained in the close and inappropriately discounted policy-based arguments without any stated reason.
    3. The spelling and capitalization should be kept because of the subject's ties to South-Asian orthography and should be retained due to its title having been so longstanding; if an article title like this has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.
    4. The arguments were not so much weaker by the majority as to result in a close in favor of consensus of the minority.
  • Endorse
    1. MOS:CAPS indicates that titles should only be capitalized when a substantial majority/almost all of sources capitalize a particular phrase as a proper noun and, as such, failing a showing that a substantial majority of RS capitalize the term, the default is to lowercase it. Discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and we should not be giving weight to the arguments to not move the page that do not attempt to establish this. As such, the closer made a reasonable close in accordance with the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI by correctly weighed the comments based upon their strength in WP:PAG and applying common RM practice.
    2. The MR nom's statement (and some statements by other editors in the MR) does not attempt to address issues with the close, but instead attempts to relitigate the close. Also, the nom citing MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN as new evidence does not motivate an overturn of the close (w.r.t RETAIN, some explicitly noted that consensus can change).
    3. WP:NOTAVOTE is extremely important to keep in mind; the arguments in favor of overturning the close are simply argumentum ad populum and are not policy-based.
Some of these arguments above are quite weak and should be given little weight, but I listed them in attempt to be more complete. In any case, in light of Wikipedia's policies, the arguments above favor overturning the discussion to no consensus were stronger than the arguments that endorsed the discussion, resulting in a rough consensus to overturn the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou for your engagement. I would ask that you might give a more detailed explanation as to how you have arrived at the conclusion stated. While you have outlined the arguments made, this does not address the fundamental question posed. At WP:NHC (citing Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure): A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. This was the criticism levelled at the original closer (M) either directly or indirectly and indicates that the close was inadequate in detail rather than incorrect in conclusion. I believe that a couple of comments that were to overturn were directly to this. Other comments were that, where M would state: This is a classic case of a debate where one side has an emotive majority but the other side has the much stronger arguments. This has been construed to mean that !VOTES had been ignore as opposed to being discounted per WP:NHC. Your own close was not as forthcoming (transparent) as that by M and could be subjected to similar criticism. We would both agree that there are MR comments that are essentially opinion and should be discounted; that there were many comments that would attempt to relitigate the RM; and, that some of the arguments you list are quite weak. If we as a community are to learn from this, then it is reasonable to ask for a fuller and more transparent explanation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: If you would like me to expand the closing statement at the move review in light of your comments, I would be more than happy to do so. I personally have no problem writing multi-paragraph closing statements that more fully explain every consideration, though a quick survey through WP:MR shows that no closure at that board in the past twelve months has been over ~four sentences in length. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I do think that would be appropriate in the circumstances; though whether you might do this here in the first instance or directly to the MR is up to you. I would note that I provided a close analysis of the RM at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 1 as a supplement to my main comment at the MR and the traffic report indicates that this has not been viewed since I created it. I would also make an observation wrt the argument by the OP re South Asian orthography. The article uses EngvarB. There is no issue regarding spelling (is v iz); however, the OP would assert that this extends to conventions of capitalisation and that there are Engvar differences in this respect. There are no authorities presented to support such an assertion nor evidence of usage to corroborate this that I can see. I would characterise this as conjecture and without any credible substance. Furthermore, arguments specifically to "is" and collectively ("is" + "iz") were addressed in the RM. IMO, this is an attempt to re-litigate the RM, albeit with a novel twist. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a ping as it does not appear that you have followed through with this yet. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing

Are you going to close Talk:Republic_of_Artsakh#RfC_on_the_descriptor_of_Artsakh_as_a_state. Do you need help with it? Andre🚐 16:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The close is finished. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to the London Bridge Task Force

Hello! You seem to have an interest in the recent death of Elizabeth II, so I wanted to invite to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. A task force is similar to a WikiProject, which is where you can communicate with other editors who all have the same goal, which is improving all the articles around a specific topic. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles III

Howdy. A few years ago, some editors gradually (via persistence) got "of the United Kingdom" removed from the British monarch bios, George III to Elizabeth II. Just a letting you know why, they're named the way they are now :) GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

PS: Pinch me, please. There's actually about 'five' editors, suggesting Charles III of the Commonwealth realms. I think they're confused with his title "Head of the Commonwealth". GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think they're trying to figure out a novel way to create a descriptive title for him, which is... what it is. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, original research. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Or just a WP:NDESC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your contribution to British history

Hi there. I noticed you were the one who edited the article on Elizabeth II to indicate that she has died. Wikipedia is a very well-travelled site that many people read, millions of people have seen your edit. Even though the average Wikipedia reader (probably an IP) will never know, we here at the Wikipedia community know. So, therefore, you have been granted additional humble bragging rights.

Congratulations! A diehard editor (talk | edits) 06:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For being the one to change "is" to "was" to the Elizabeth II article upon her death. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 06:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Slapshot (song)

On 11 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Slapshot (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Slapshot", a 1995 rock song commissioned by the New York Rangers, is widely considered to be the best goal song in the National Hockey League? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Slapshot (Ray Castoldi song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Slapshot (song)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Binger

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Binger 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 Nineteen Ninety-Four guy -- Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Binger

The article Thomas Binger you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Thomas Binger for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nineteen Ninety-Four guy -- Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Binger

The article Thomas Binger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Binger 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 Nineteen Ninety-Four guy -- Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Mimetic Capital

Information icon Hello, Red-tailed hawk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mimetic Capital, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Megan Coyne

On 13 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Megan Coyne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when asked who let New Jersey have a Twitter account, its manager simply replied, "your mom"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Megan Coyne. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Megan Coyne), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Schwede66 12:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 5,503 views (458.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you! Couldn't have done it without you (: — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, wanted to ping you personally about an update to the external link icon. Regards, Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. Thank you for creating James Rogers (priest). User:VickKiang, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This page might have been created as a duplicate, though I've still marked this as reviewed, as the (priest) label might be useful to some. Per the biography entry, he is a "Roman Catholic priest and bishop", so IMHO, this redirect is probably sensible, though if this is nominated at RfD, I won't have many objections.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thanks for telling us the queen died my dude Aybee9298 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Sorry, Wikimedia keeps crashing on my pc. So about the copyright claims, can't you use government information and images on Wikipedia? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Long story short, it depends on what government is the creator of the file's content and on which wiki the file is uploaded.
Files uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia are allowed to be any photograph so long as it is public domain in the United States, any photograph under a free license, or any photograph that complies with WP:NFCC and is validly tagged as such. Files uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, files must be freely licensed or in the public domain in both the United States and its country of origin.
Government photos from the PRC are not presumed to be in the public domain, since China's copyright rules only exempt a limited subset of their government's works from copyright protection. Due to the Berne Convention, these files are also presumed copyrighted in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok thanks, but I'm in Pakistan, not in the US. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Muhafiz-e-Pakistan: Wikimedia projects are all based in the United States, which is why WP:COPYRIGHT notes that The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. More information on how Wikipedia handles copyrights of works first published outside of the United States can be found at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Page review

Hey. I got a notification that you reviewed my user page about half an hour ago. What does that involve or do exactly? Nothing was different when I clicked on my profile, so I'm just a bit curious is all. Hmm1994 (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What this means is that I have looked at your user page and determined that it is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines at the time of the review, in my capacity as a new page patroller. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Reason

Do you have a valid reason for constantly reverting my edit on an article that you have never even edited? The image of the sigg is unattributed and I have since had reason to question it's authenticity. Unless you know otherwise you should allow it to be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted you twice, each time noting why I did so in the edit summary. If you would like to know how I encountered the file, it was through the image's deletion request at Commons; I found the rationale to be quite strange for a signature of a famous musician and I tried to figure out why it was unused. That it was nominated just minutes after deleting it from the EnWiki article on the basis that the photo was going to be deleted at Commons frankly didn't make a lot of sense to me, so I restored it to the article and challenged the DR. The second time I reverted you was because you made unsupported claims about attribution for a file you say is public domain, which I found to be confusing given that public domain files that are below the threshold of originality do not actually require attribution.
Your authenticity argument is new, and plausibly a valid reason to delete the image, but the remainder of the discussion on that note should take place at the DR (with respect to the image's suitability for Commons) or the article talk page (with respect to the image's suitability for the article). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Images are always tricky and since neither I nor Wikipedia has anyway to authenticate this signature we have no WP:V. So reinstating it in the article is inappropriate. I encourage you to revert your edit reinstating the image and we can see if wikipedia wants to have an image that cannot be verified in any way. (I am cutting and pasting this to the file's talk page) Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The upload source indicates that this was lifted from a literal letter from the guy... that's generally good enough for Commons and we can make original images in line with WP:OI. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

26 September 2022

Hi, Red-tailed hawk, I had removed Proposed deletion from article Baidyanath Singh and added some content and references.Ted071203 (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Narco (Blasterjaxx and Timmy Trumpet song)

On 1 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Narco (Blasterjaxx and Timmy Trumpet song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Golf Digest has described "Narco" as having "a fire beat"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Narco (Blasterjaxx and Timmy Trumpet song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Narco (Blasterjaxx and Timmy Trumpet song)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive is on!

You are receiving this message because you signed up to participate in the drive, but have not yet reviewed any pages in October. We would love to see you over at the backlog drive! Buidhe 10:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Eastern Europe archived and closed.

The Clarification request: Eastern Europe has been closed and archived. You can view the archived request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122 § Clarification request: Eastern Europe. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

October 8

Hi, I saw that you nominated Grungecake for deletion, i took my time to read Wikipedia notability for magazines. Please take a look at my comment on the deletion discussion. Thank you Afternoon Daydream (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The da Vinci Barnstar
Your NCORP table generator is amazing. When I see it come up in AfD I know that real work has gone into that nomination. Just wanted to recognize you and your work that you do here. I look forward to using it in the future! Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Oil and natural gas refining in Turkmenistan

On 9 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oil and natural gas refining in Turkmenistan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while oil and gas production is a large part of Turkmenistan's economy, there are only two oil refineries in Turkmenistan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oil and natural gas refining in Turkmenistan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oil and natural gas refining in Turkmenistan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to ping

Hello. The evidence you provided at WP:RfAR is partly in error. The original ANI discussion was first closed by GiantSnowman (diff), then by myself (diff). I did so at the time to avoid the repetition of a split discussion, since there was no proposal to do anything, while some folks asked for it to be closed a 2nd time for those reasons. Personally, I think it'd be better if the community were to deal with this matter, since not only is ARBCOM slow to do, well, pretty much anything — but also, at times, they could be unresponsive even at the face of overwhelming community consensus (unless bureaucracy). Thanks for your attention. El_C 18:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I'll correct the statement; my apologies for providing an incomplete history. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Not at all. Thanks for the prompt reply. El_C 18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I stand corrected. El_C 18:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Republic of Artsakh#RfC outcome

Hello, I apologize for the inconvenience; could you kindly express your thoughts on this? Despite the fact that the RfC was closed without consensus, one of the users who also participated in RfC alters Artsakh's political status on the different articles to what he feels it should be. Thanks in advance! A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Abrvagl and AntonSamuel: Without comment to the specific merits of the changes, I don't think that the lack of a consensus at that RfC would either endorse or prohibit changes in other articles from the wording of the close itself. As always, consensus should be achieved if there are contested changes, but the basis for keeping the various mentions regarding the polity was linked to WP:NOCON because there was no local consensus to make a change. A lack of consensus at one discussion doesn't mean that there can't be consensus other pages that the use of a term is more appropriate in a particular context, but making arbitrary changes in a widespread manner without consensus in a way that makes it near impossible to reverse can be considered disruptive editing. I don't think that changing terms in a mere five articles times is necessarily disruptive editing, but I'm also not an administrator and as a result of my related lack of action at AE I don't tend to have good knowledge of the threshold to trigger AA2 arbitration enforcement actions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I am not an administrator either, but there were a number of disagreements on the multiple articles on how the political status of the Artsakh Republic should be described, and RfC was started as a result. RfC was not intended just for the Republic of Artsakh article, as evidenced by the question Should Republic of Artsakh be described as in Wikipedia articles?. I believe it is unacceptable that a person, who participated in that RfC and understands what is what, makes contentious edits by altering Artsakh's political status on several articles without any consensus or discussion, and continues to do so despite being pointed out by several users. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request closed

A request for amendment that you were a party to has been closed. The arbitrators felt that Valereee's actions were within the bounds of her discretion and that the discussion of a new deletion criterion should be saved for the second RfC. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request re: closure of 2022 RfC on bilateral relations

Hello, would it be possible to obtain further clarification regarding your closure of 2022 RfC on bilateral relations article titles at Talk:France–Germany border? Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Early end of the backlog drive

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Run-pass option.
Message added 02:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Awards

The Reviewer Barnstar
This award is given to Red-tailed hawk for collecting more than 50 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Worm Gear Award

This award is given to Red-tailed hawk for collecting more than 7 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ugwiki

Hi! I like to visit wikis and help them clean up files. One of the wikis I visited is ugwiki and I see you are cleaning up there. Great! Do you have a special relation to ugwiki or are you working on other wikis too? I made m:User:MGA73/Media per wiki some time ago and it takes a long time to clean up so it's nice to meet other users that work on files too :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MGA73: Thank you for the message! I am an active admin on ugWiki and I'm trying to go through all the files to determine their copyright status and appropriate licensing by the end of December. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good! Unless ugwiki has fair use you will probably have to delete many of the remaining files. But time will tell :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
There's no fair use policy on ugWiki, so most of them will wind up needing to be deleted. The reason it's taking time is that I don't want to lazily delete something available under {{pd-art}} if I can avoid it. Most of the photographs of people that are locally hosted will probably have to go. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Run-pass option

On 2 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Run-pass option, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that run-pass option plays used in college football allow quarterbacks to pass the ball farther downfield than those used in in the NFL? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Run-pass option. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Run-pass option), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What is up with Flora Wilshire?

I was doing some editing on List of websites blocked in Mainland China, and while I was checking the history, I noticed that some of her edits had considerably... provocative edit summaries.

When I checked her contributions, it seemed like she's a total China shill. But oddly, now she appears to have stormed off in a rage proclaiming that "I cannot edit Wikipedia while it is run by capitalists" or whatever.

What's going on? Hank Benson (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite know, but you may want to ask yourself that question. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk/Archive_5&oldid=1146101323"