User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vito Trause has been accepted

Vito Trause, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Universities Research Association proposed deletion

Removed proposed deletion. I encourage anyone proposing deletion to do more research before doing so. The Universities Research Association Inc is a consortium of 89 research universities around the world and is a partnership to manage one of the premier research laboratories in the world (Fermilab).

Happy to discuss further but I do encourage you to do research first. If you have suggestions for improving the page, please do so.

Furthermore, if you wish to delete a page, please open the discussion on the Talk page first where it belongs.

Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bryanmackinnon: Where did you get you wish to delete a page, please open the discussion on the Talk page first where it belongs from? And, I think the PROD rationale explained my views on the state of the article pretty well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) 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 05:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Trainee SPI clerk interest

Hi - you previously indicated that you were interested in becoming a SPI clerk. Could you please ensure your entry is up to date, and confirm that you are still interested. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheresNoTime. Thank you for your message. I'm still interested in becoming an SPI clerk and I will update my entry to bring it up-to-date. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

AFD

I can only apologise for this result. The relevant guideline is very clear, and you put a lot of effort into complying with that guideline, after I urged you to do so. There's now a multi-venue discussion going on about the appropriateness of WP:NFOOTY with that/those AFDs as a test-case, and the first of those articles has been nominated again. So maybe something will come of it. *sigh*. Keep up the good work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Stalwart111. To be honest, I've never experienced a "the guideline is bad thus keep" discussion before, though I guess this is how guidelines can change over time. My hope is that it doesn't turn out to be a big waste of time for all those involved. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, its the intersection of gender equality and professional (or not) sports, it will absolutely be a colossal waste of time. But none of that is your fault. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Recreation

They were not exact recreations, namely, the pages now show that the players have an ongoing pro career. Geschichte (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

They were almost identical to the versions of the Wikipedia page archived at Everybody Wiki. See 1 and 2. I don't see a substantial difference in content. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Couch Guy

This does not seem to meet the criteria for a G10. Content is sourced and not entirely negative. It may still warrant deletion per BLP, you may want to take it to WP:AfD. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Per your advice, I've nominated the article for deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have voted deleted in this AfD. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Olympics SNG

Thanks for your time to assess close the RfC. I noticed that WP:NSPORTS mentions "Olympics" in many other places on the page, essentially duplicating (before) that Olympic participants in the respective sport were notable. Based on this RfC, should those sport-specific guidelines also be updated? Or are they considered exceptions, not within the scope of the RfC. A statement, one way or the other, seems needed. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba: my reading of the RfC is that it was specific to WP:NOLY. That seemed to be the frame in which the community was discussing the issue. And, it did not seem like there was a general consensus to purge Olympics participation from a presumption of notability outside of that scope. The discussion focused on the general notion of participation in the Olympics, rather than participation in any particular sport’s competition at the Olympics. For example, some might expect it to be more likely that there exists in-depth coverage of Olympic figure skaters than, say, 1900s tug-of-war contestants—they might find it reasonable that Olympic participation (with or without a restriction on the earliest date for a presumption of notability) would presumably grant enough significant coverage (or plain notability by some other measure) for a competitor in that particular sport. Or editors could apply a similar analysis and find that, for a particular sport, the top X people are presumed notable where X is not three.

The sorts of questions of how to create SNGs for particular sports are not resolved by the RfC that I closed. The close itself was intended to reflect a consensus that participating in the Olympics, in and of itself, does not merit a presumption of notability. This is should not be read to supersede all other established subject notability guidelines listed within NSPORT that involve the Olympics in some way. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a suggestion to improve legibility of closing statements: perhaps in cases where you are making a long statement, you could consider just placing it at the top of the discussion, rather than in a sidebar box? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Noted. I will keep this in mind for the future. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Mikehawk10,

Please remember to leave a talk page notification any time you tag a page for speedy deletion, CSD. I see that you use Twinkle so please be sure that in your Preferences, you have the "Notify page creator" box checked and that you have every CSD criteria checked. I think the Twinkle default is to only have a few speedy deletion criteria checked but it really doesn't matter whether the page has been tagged as a G11, C1 or R3, page creators should receive a notification when a page they created has been tagged for deletion.

If you expect doing a lot of this type of work, you might find it handy to check off the box to maintain a deletion log, for CSDs, PRODs and XfDs. It can be useful to look it over later and see if your taggings led to deletions and, if not, you can see why. I have been around 8 years and I still maintain deletion logs. It can also alert you if a page that was deleted has been recreated as it might need to be tagged again.

Thank you for your work! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Thank you for reaching out on this. I think Twinkle may be running into an issue with automatically notifying people of CSDs when they select a redirect-specific deletion criteria, even with the box checked. I also have the page curation script running; could that lead to a conflict? In any case, how do I report a Twinkle bug? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

notice

@Mikehawk10: Thank you for your contributions, but please be careful with reverts because edits like these can happen. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Think you read those diffs backward

You warned Taylorthewho (talk · contribs) for BLP violations. But it looks to me like the five edits in question were all removing BLPvios. Since they're a brand-new user, might be a good idea to apologize. (I noticed this while reviewing Spicy's close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaserSharkz. You should take a look there, if you haven't already.) Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: you are totally correct; that’s rather embarrassing on my behalf. I've apologized to the editor on their talk page. Thank you for letting me know about this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kelli Stavast

Not intentional at all; the conflict system tangled my comment with yours and somehow removed yours (I double-checked too, which is doubly frustrating!). Very sorry about that. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Not a problem! Just wanted to check; this sort of thing happens from time to time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, 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 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of David Oliver (magician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Oliver (magician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Oliver (magician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

TiggerJay (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Katyn Memorial Jersey City.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Katyn Memorial Jersey City.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I've left a response on File:Katyn Memorial Jersey City.jpg. Please let me know if you have any reply. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Kiino Villand

If this fact is not included then all his dead link to people he supposedly photographed should be erased. 2600:1700:3520:3CE0:2C5E:4748:8132:205F (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC) @2600:1700:3520:3CE0:2C5E:4748:8132:205F: Not all dead links (archives are fine), but the list of exhibitions should be significantly trimmed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please help to perfect and publish a draft of the article entitled (J. Mario Belougi). Thank you.

Please help to perfect and publish a draft of the article entitled (J. Mario Belougi). Thank you. Christiani E. Landjaro (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

David Oliver (magician) & WP:BLPCRIME issue

I can see your passionate about this article, but your passion seems misplaced. You are not dealing with some POV or involved editor here. I plainly explained the reason for the removal both in the edit summary and on the AfD, but instead of discussing an item you know is contentious, you POV push, instead of opting to discuss.

In case you missed it, in the AfD which I notified you about, I made clear that I am 'neutral on the issue. I think there is not enough consideration of the policies, precedents and facts when evaluating how this issue has been handled in the past. (The COI/POV editors do not help any!). THANK YOU for contributing to the AfD and the information you provided was definitely helpful!

However, this should underscore that the question on IF he is a notable, public figure is contentious. And when we are talking about a BLP, we need to "(presume) in favor of privacy"[1] & "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."[2]. Therefore, it might be a really good idea to remove this contentious information, and wait out the AfD -- this is WP:NOTNEWS so there is no rush, and we should error on the side of privacy. I believe this is a reasonable approach.

I don't intend to discuss or debate this issue on your talk page. But rather point these out to point that this is a contentious issue, that should not be summarily dismissed with a simple click of UNDO. My ask is that you revert your own edit in the interest of privacy and process -- or -- talk about it on the article page. I am presuming an enormous amount of good faith in you at the moment and hoping that you don't have a bone to pick here. TiggerJay (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: No bone to pick here with the article subject. My reading of the sources is that he's a public figure and a well-known now-retired magician, and that these sorts of widely reported criminal charges would belong in his article given their relative level of coverage. However I've self-reverted to make this procedurally more kosher; sparring over interpretations of the WP:BLP policy and its application to this specific case via edit summaries wouldn't be productive nor beneficial to the project if it becomes a back-and-forth thing. I think that the extent to which he's a public figure could be pertinent to some potential arguments relating to deletion as an outcome (a-la-WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), so I think that would be the proper forum to have the discussion around that point rather than at the article talk. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No bone here either... I think there is good discussion taking place at AfD and your research has been helpful. And your insights on other AfD are also insightful!

I think this will ultimately result in what I predicted over at COIN but it is best to go through the established processes when it is contentious and we have both COI and other involved editors dealing with this issue. As an aside I find it very interesting that the person who first added the crime to the article (IP editor) also positively added something about another magician (COI?), as well as the person who wrote on the talk page about the conviction was another SPA account -- sounds like someone is very intent on making his crimes more public knowledge. Perhaps a victim, but also possibly an adversary in the field. Which even while the information is accurate it is a tiny but concerning. But to be clear motives do not detract from truth. And if Oliver is free to promote himself, others are equally free to factually detract from his public image. TiggerJay (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

• From the editor: Different stories, same place

• News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded

• In the media: China bans, and is there intelligent life on this planet?

• Opinion: A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life

• Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process

• Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention

• Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia

• Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game

• Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more

• Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp

• Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality

• WikiProject report: Redirection

• Humour: A very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hi Mikehawk10, I am writing to follow up on my removal of your addition of the Heavy.com article, "Kelli Stavast: NBC Reporter Behind Let’s Go Brandon Meme" to Kelli Stavast. I had two reasons for removing this source. In my first edit summary [3], I pointed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination) and stated "and per pending RfC". In both AfDs, it is noted that this Heavy.com article is churnalism, and in the second AfD, the source assessment table includes "WP:RSP "When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead." This Heavy.com article clearly relies on Stavast's Instagram for her engagement announcement, and per the WP:RSP related to Heavy.com, the original source should be used instead.

Regardless of whether Heavy.com can be considered a reliable source here, I tried to be more clear in my next removal of your addition of the Heavy.com source [4], which is intended to keep the page stable while the RfC on the Talk page about whether to include content related to "Let's Go Brandon!" continues. Please note that in the Responding to an RfC section of WP:RFC, it states, Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Beccaynr and thank you for your message. I disagree strongly with your assertion any implication that this edit inserted "Let's Go Brandon" content into the article. The reference is to an WP:MREL source (which is fine for things like engagements and the like), and the reference is used to support the text, he grew up in Colorado and moved to Las Vegas where her then-fiancé Gavin was living when she got engaged in 2016. There is zero precedent found in guidelines or community consensus for summarily banning the use of all references that happen to contain content that's under RfC, when those references are used to support uncontroversial content unrelated to the topic of the RfC itself. If your objection is that the referenced article contains content that's related to Let's Go Brandon, even though the use of the source in the article doesn't then I'd point you towards the notion that Wikipedia is not censored, which governs both content and external links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. From a policy perspective, it is extremely clear that an argument that the addition of that reference in the way that I did is somehow precluded by text found on an information page on Requests for comment is unfounded. Please strike your reference to it.

On another note, if you really want to get technical, WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't actually allow self-published sources in a BLP to cover claims involving individuals other than Stavast; there aren't exceptions made for claims about the identity of her spouse, fiancé, child, parents, or close relatives in the BLP policy. If anyone were to come by and contest the material (I don't see why anybody would, but you never know), it would have to be removed unless we have a non self-published source; Heavy.com is such a source and I believe that its inclusion as a reference improves the article's sourcing. I would gladly take this to WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of the Heavy.com source. Its current listing doesn't really have more weight than an essay; keep in mind that RSP is a WP:SUPPLEMENTAL to WP:RS. Except when community consensus is clearly established in discussions, such as from the result of an RfC or as from the result of substantial discussions with high participation, the RSP listing isn't necessarily reflecting community consensus. Discussion on RSN might actually help to flush this out a bit and to improve the extent to which the RSP listing can be seen as proceeding from a community consensus.

Regarding the "source assessment table" that you created explicitly notes that it doesn't necessarily reflect community consensus. I don't think that there's a reasonable reading that the source assessment table reflects a community consensus of sorts, and pointing to a nicely-formatted table that you created in a previous discussion doesn't actually do anything to add to an analysis of the specific reference that I added by itself. That being said, that is what WP:RSN is for. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

re: Frontier Media COVID-19 hubs

Hello Mikehawk10, I hope to touch base with you regarding the Frontiers Media COVID-19 hub request edit that was posted at Talk:Frontiers_Media#COVID-19_hubs. I found another source that mentions Frontiers Media Covid-19 knowledge hub. Also, I had proposed the TechCrunch article in question because it was written by a news editor that has been highly used across Wikipedia, so I thought it may be appropriate. In case you did not see my note on the Talk page, you can read it in full on the Frontiers Media Talk page. Thanks for helping me better understand what sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mikehawk10, a friendly reminder that I replied to your question at [[Talk:Frontiers_Media#COVID-

19_hubs]]. If you still have time to review, I would appreciate your feedback. If not, I understand. Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source close

Greetings MikeHawk10. I see that you are currently in communication with the closer of the discussion thread about the Australian strategic policy institute on the reliable sources noticeboard and appear to be challenging to the close. I have also challenged the close (this) but was reverted by the closer and told to take my objections to the administrator’s noticeboard. Should you be dissatisfied with the outcome of your current discussion with the closer, will you take your objections to the admin noticeboard as advised by the closer? Or will you leave it as us? If you do decide to take it to the noticeboard would you mind if I deferred to you to take the lead in writing the challenge? Your contributions on the subject article’s talk page and your aggregate contributions to the encyclopedia would appear to indicate that your commitment to this rsn closure issue and overall experience far exceeds mine Estnot (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Estnot. I think that the most proper way to move forward, for now, is to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page. It is generally improper for a closed discussion to be re-opened by a user other than the uninvolved closer unilaterally. I find substantial issues with the top line summary of the close in light of WP:BIASED and how we generally characterize biased sources on RSP that are reliable in their area of expertise, but I would like to hear more from the closer on their intended meaning of the close (and to give them a chance to tweak the close) before I would take it to AN. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

this sounds good. But just to clarify will you take your objections to the admin noticeboard if the closer doesn’t change the decision? Or will you leave it as is? It sounds like you will take it to the administrator’s noticeboard but I’m not 100% sure Estnot (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10. I am not sure if my request for clarification escaped your notice but is it possible that can you follow up on this? Thanks in advance Estnot (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Estnot. I'm mulling over it; I'm seeing a good bit of opposition on the RSN thread itself, and I've discussed it with the user on their talkpage. I'm going to be writing a piece for The Signpost as my primary editing task until that article is complete, but it's likely that I could write a challenge to the close after that. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

this sounds good. My only concern is if other editors put the rsn decision about aspi on the rsp list before you get the chance to issue the close challenge. If timing is an issue and you can’t do it then let me know and I’ll see what I can do to help out. If it isn’t then I look forward to seeing the next steps that you will take Estnot (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Estnot:Ultimately, any editor has the prerogative to issue a close challenge if they'd like. I'm reading everything over again today and I'll let you know over the next 24 hours what I'm going to do. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

sounds good!Estnot (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Milehawk10 it’s been a couple of days since your last comment concerning this issue and I see you may have forgotten about this as your edit history shows you’ve been preoccupied with other articles and topics, but can follow up on this? Thanks in advance Estnot (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess Promotion

I am so sorry about that. I talked to some of the people in the house and one of them was playing a chess game with a friend, and in order to not lose, edited the wiki page so that the made up rule appeared. Thank you for telling me and I will try to make sure it won't happn again. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.69.102 (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Rise Bar

Hello! Just FYI, re: this edit: I deleted the GA review transclusion because editors can access the review from the template at the top of the Talk page. This is fairly common, but you can keep the GA review transcluded on the Talk page if you prefer. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

SPI clerk trainee request

Hello Mike, I noticed you have applied to be an SPI clerk. However, due to your, ahem, humorous username, it is unlikely that your request will be considered. Since you will be regularly interacting with new editors, many of whom will be justifiably upset at being accused of abusing multiple accounts, you'll need to have a more appropriate username. I'd also recommend getting a username change if you intend on ever running for adminship, since that alone will get it shot down. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: While my username has not been disruptive to any of the work I have done over my thousands of edits on Wikipedia, and I have already posted a reason for why I chose this name above, I am ok to change it if this is going to be disruptive for clerking SPI and interacting with new users. I have submitted a request for usurpation at the appropriate page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Question on move

I reset up the move, using the process you described, could you let me know if I have done everything correctly? Thanks so much for the help. Zune4ever (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Zune4ever: You've moved it to the new title within the Draft namespace, so you've done that correctly if your intent was to keep it as a draft. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic, and the non draft page will be deleted at some point before any other steps can be made, correct? Zune4ever (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I did nothing

Don't report me — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsChannel fan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@NewsChannel fan: You've made this edit that the bot reverted and this edit I reverted. Both of these were disruptive. If you cease editing disruptively, but instead choose to edit productively, then I see no need to make a formal report. Happy editing! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will NewsChannel fan (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Tulu script information is more needed.

Tulu script is an olden script . This page will help for research people who is doing research regarding tulu script and tulu tradition. Presently there are so many people learning script from various places. So many people are working to teach tulu script. Karnataka Tulu sahithya academy and government approved to teach tulu script. This page will help people who are willing to learn tulu script .. Thank you.. 2402:8100:282C:77:EFE3:B0C3:3C81:29B5 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Applying Protection level an article vs allowing edits

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your feedback and review of my article Jonathan Roumie. After the acceptance I noticed couple of edits and comments about how it’s not supported with enough documentation. And I also noticed something that is substantiated by references was removed by a user calling it promotional fluff when there is clearly a reference cited. Is locking the article something I can look at? The last thing I want is for the article to be vandalised, since this is a BLOP. And how do I go about applying a protection level on my article?

Also I noticed that when I click on the Wikipedia page Jonathan Roumie on Google search the page automatically redirects to “The Chosen”. How do I remove the redirect?

Elenatina (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: To answer the last question first, that's probably a caching issue with Google. I'm able to get to the correct page when clicking on the link with both Google and Bing, so I think it's resolved.

Regarding the earlier questions Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that anyone can freely edit. If you'd prefer to challenge particular edits, you could revert them and open a discussion on the talk page (read that bluelink first though, since it describes the "insert a bold edit, revert the bold edit, discuss how to move forward" process fairly well). If you object to edits challenging the sourcing (like this one), then you want to explain in the discussion why each of the sources is reliable for the claim that is being made (many appear to be primary source videos; do they show the names of the people cast at any point?). Be careful not to edit war by continuously undoing edits on the page; since even article creators don't own the page, there's no exception here and there's no real way to assert that. If you open discussions on the talk page and explain your analysis, then that would be helpful in obtaining a consensus on how to proceed. Alternatively, rather than reverting wholesale, you can manually revert the portions of edits made that you think were detrimental to the article, though be sure to explain why you are doing so in both the edit summary when making your edits and on the talk page after making them if you need room to give a fuller explanation.

In general, pages are not protected due to disputes over content, unless there's really bad edit warring (which often results in some users being blocked by admins who are trying to keep the peace). If you'd like to request page protection, you can head to WP:RFPP and file a request there, following the instructions on the page. It seems unlikely to me that protection would be granted here; there doesn't appear to be edit warring and the BLP issues seem to have been dealt with.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Mikehawk10, Love your detailed explanation as always! When we list a source like a video and it has the name of the cast members, is it considered a valid link? I understand you can't use the IMDB entry as a valid source. But how about a real video of the content? For instance, if I say the subject has done voices for X,Y and Z and then link to the actual voice mimic audio file, is that considered valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: The reason I say the videos is because if there are (for example) movie/TV show credits, then those credits could be considered reliable for the purposes of saying that he was in the movie/TV show. However, you can't synthesize that he's in a movie/TV show because you see a character that looks like another picture you have seen of him. Likewise, if you'd link to the voice mimic audio file, it would probably not be OK inasmuch as we'd need the primary source (the audio file) to explicitly affirm that it's the article subject saying it (it would probably be a violation of WP:NOR and/or WP:V to link a voice file and say that it's 100% the person based on the sound of the voice alone). Do these examples help?

On top of that, you'd have to show that the primary source is legitimate. In other words, it would have to be hosted on some reliable service so that we can trust that it hasn't been tampered with by a random person prior to its upload.

In short, use heavy caution with primary sources in biographies of living people. If you think that it's not absolutely clear that the source backs up that he's in something, it's probably not an appropriate use of a primary source. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Banana Republic casting ASPERSIONS and overall not assuming good fait. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For clarification, you are not the main subject of the thread, but I did briefly mention you in it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Juan Mata edit

I heavily believe that Juan Mata is one of the best midfielders in the last decade and his period at Chelsea proves so. Why did you change my edit? 2.26.184.57 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@2.26.184.57: Statements of opinion are fine, provided that they reflect are properly attributed to a reliable source and are compliant with a neutral point of view. In other words, if you're going to add that statement, you need to find a reliable source for it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wat Khao Wong Prachan

A tag has been placed on Wat Khao Wong Prachan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

University of Notre Dame

Hello:

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

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

Checking the article's edit history will give you a clear idea of any changes. I updated details in the Administration and academic buildings, Environmental sustainability', Organization and administration, Colleges and schools, Rankings, Student events, Football and Men's basketball sections. Another update that needs working on is in the Special programs section and I have masked material in a number of sections that is out of date including the introduction, Student Life and Student Events sections. Some of this may be worth updating, some perhaps not. The gallery that followed the Community development section is masked because it does not really add to reader's understanding of the article per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries . You can easily unmask it if you disagree. I left the gallery section at the end of the article because they are photos of alumni mentioned in the text. In some places you'll see I masked irrelevant information. If you disagree with any of the masking you can simply remove the arrow dash characters before and after it and the sentence will be reinstated.

Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much! This is really helpful and I really appreciate the time you put in to copyedit the article.

I'll trust your judgement on the masking; it's not my area of expertise and your judgements seem reasonable. I'll take a look at the sections that you've indicated to need work, and I'll try to have this peer-reviewed for a content check before it gets submitted for GA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ki the Earth Goddess

We don't need an AfD for Ki the Earth Goddess. It was created by a student editor under the original title Ki (goddess). The WikiEd dashboard seems to be down right now, but I'd hazard a guess that the latter was the article they were assigned, but that since their instructions directed them to make a userspace draft, they then didn't know how to reconcile the two versions. I'm just going to merge them and explain what I did to the editor; AfDs can be extremely alienating to new editors. – Joe (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe Roe. While I understand your concern about WikiEd (and I did not realize this at the time I nominated the page for redirection), I really am confused by your decision to unilaterally close the discussion as a speedy keep. I'd ask that you reverse your speedy closure; an argument is provided for redirection in the AfD, which is enough to avoid the speedy closure criterion that you cited. I did not support a merger myself; I supported a redirect while keeping the history in order to make the redundancy eliminated and so the article subject could be covered in one place. While this does not explicitly prohibit editors from taking text from one to the other, I'm not advocating for a merge of the article content, so this doesn't meet WP:SCLOSE's criteria for a speedy keep. If you believe that the text should be merged, rather than redirected, you should be willing to make that case at the AfD instead of prematurely closing it as a speedy keep and shortly thereafter merging the content of the two articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See point 1.2 of WP:SK. What would reversing the close achieve? The page now redirects to Ki (goddess), which is what you wanted to happen. If you really feel strongly that the content (all 3 lines) should not be in that article, then go ahead and remove it, though it is relevant and referenced so I don't see why you would. – Joe (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Roumie

Hi, I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Roumie, and there are two unreferenced sections awaiting references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo in RfC close

Not that it's likely to cause confusion, but I assume you meant to write "Consensus is not determined by a vote" in your close at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(television)#Request_for_comment_to_establish_this_notability_guideline_as_an_SNG. Colin M (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: OOPS! I’ve fixed it in the statement—thank you for alerting me.  Self-trout — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Mikehawk10. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Did you find the answer to this question elsewhere? I'm trying something myself and I'll get back to you if it works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you for alerting me to this! I'll keep this in mind in the future. :) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jack Posobiec 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 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

MKUCR

You wrote: "This seems to be a feasible outline, and I see a path forward that involves a bunch of RfCs to determine how to weight content of the first two sections, but this seems like it would reasonably summarize the topic area. If the issue is the current content in some sections, then that is something that the request for comment process is made for; protracted WP:DR seems to be running into the same shortcomings of the WP:Mediation Cabal."

Yes. Do you have a suggestion? You are not expected to have read the dispute resolution at WP:DRNMKUCR, which is excessively lengthy, but if you have, you will see that I am trying to arrange a set of RFCs, and that we aren't there yet, largely because I am having a difficult time in getting the participants to keep focused on what I see as the objective of putting together a set of RFCs, and also because there was a discussion of whether to AFD the article, which seemed to be decided as not taking the article to AFD, until it was taken to AFD.

I personally have found that one of the reasons why protracted dispute resolution is difficult is that a protracted dispute is typically one in which there are different editors with strong and incompatible ideas, and that it is not easy to get to the RFC stage.

Do you have a suggestion for how to go forward in this dispute? Do you have a suggestion for how to handle protracted content disputes where editors have strong incompatible opinions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think honestly that if there is at least one editor party to the dispute resolution process that is totally unwilling to accept anything other than their current point of view that the dispute resolution process will fail; the point of DR is to get editors to agree to some mutual solution and move forward. In this case, the fundamental issues that editors don't seem to be agreeing on, in order of importance, are:

1. Whether any article along these lines should exist at all;
2. The proper scope of the article (Is the article about the relationship between a communist ideology and mass killing, or is it a summary style article that serves as a hub for mass killings committed by communist regimes); and
3. The way that sources should be weighted in the text of the article once scope is determined.

The first problem is the reason that I think any sort of non-binding mediation here is going to fail. It most significantly highlights the extreme gap between editors party to the DR IMO, and it's a bit hard to get editors who argue that a subject is inherently OR/SYNTH that anything in the article is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't see any way that the current deletion discussion ends in a consensus to delete, though a "no consensus" outcome is honestly probably the most destructive thing that could happen because this will lead to everyone pressing the same deletion arguments and keep arguments again with the almost certain possibility that canvassing will occur because this is obviously a topic that a lot of people online seem to care about.

In any case, back to your original question on whether I have any suggestions:

First, fire off an RfC (probably on the fringe theories noticeboard and also post on CENT, since this will affect a whole host of Eastern European history articles) on whether the idea that mass killings committed by communist regimes were unique in some way from mass killings committed by regimes of other ideologies is itself a fringe theory. If the consensus is that it is fringe, the article probably needs to be rewritten as an article detailing the specific relationship between communism and mass killings in line with WP:WEIGHT and any attempts to write a summary style article article are probably not going to gain community consensus. If the consensus is that it is not fringe (or if it's indeed the majority view), then the article is best as a summary style article that branches off into the other mass killings.

Second, it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that the term "mass killings" doesn't have community consensus on what it actually means. What sources agree on is that the big three mass killing regimes (Soviet, PRC, Cambodia) were mass killings. After the RfC on whether this whole concept is fringe is concluded as "it is not", I'd fire off an RfC to try to determine what constitutes a "mass killing" for the purpose of a summary style article. I personally find it hard to imagine that the Katyn massacre isn't plainly described by the term of "mass killing", but the notion of "50K deaths over 5 years" that I'm seeing some editors advocate for goes against my native understanding of what a mass killing is and also would apparently draw a line between mass killing and mass murder—the definition doesn't seem like an obviously correct one. An RfC would help to resolve the criteria for what gets listed as a child article, so that this way we can get rid of the potential for WP:COATRACK by having firm guidance. This is what articles like "list of ethnic cleansing campaigns" do and, while lists are different than prose articles, I do think that this sort of thing would help to regulate what gets lumped into the article in order to keep it maintainable.

Once these are done, the scope of the article should be much more clear. Once the scope of the article is clear, then we can actually move on to evaluating particular content to see how it lines up with relevant scholarship. Until the scope of the article is clear, these sorts of discussions are going to go in endless circles. And, if you believe and have evidence that people are acting in bad faith by being a WP:SEALION, then WP:AE is around the corner. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-Up

Zeroth, I realize that, in asking if you had any suggestions, I was not clear as to what I was asking. I was asking sincerely for suggestions about the dispute resolution process in general and the mediation process in particular. I was also asking about what to do about MKUCR, but my question was partly sarcastic, partly the result of frustration, and partly wondering if anyone had any new ideas after reading 27,000 words. I apologize if I wasted your time in asking a question that would partly agree with what I am already trying to do.

First, I said that you were not required to have read the 27,000 words of DRN. Since I don't know whether you have read that lengthy exchange, I don't know whether you are mostly agreeing with me or mostly disagreeing with me.

Second, I have already taken issue with one editor saying that "mass killing" is straightforward. In particular, there isn't agreement about the two famines, about whether they should be counted as mass killings.

Third, it is true that there isn't going to be a compromise, and I have been and am trying to direct the process toward a set of RFCs.

Fourth, your final comment about reporting any sealioning to Arbitration Enforcement misses the point of my role. As the mediator, my job is to stay in a role of attempting to develop the RFCs as long as I can, in spite of conduct allegations and conduct violations. If I have to abandon that role by failing the DRN, I will make a statement to AE (or WP:ANI if someone takes it there instead). I am trying to minimize conduct issues as long as I can.

Fifth, it is true that protracted dispute resolution very seldom results in compromise. Protracted disputes have to be resolved by RFC.

Sixth, do you have any general recommendations about how to deal with protracted content disputes?

Seventh, mostly thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for the follow-up. I currently owe Smallbones a signpost article, so I'm going to take that on right now, but please ping me if I don't get back to you over the next 36 hours. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

• In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021

• Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained

• From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?

• Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021

• Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent

• Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?

• WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

• Serendipity: "Did You Know ..." featured a photo of the wrong female WWII pilot

• News from Diff: Content translation tool helps create one million Wikipedia articles

• Traffic report: Reporting ticket sales on the edge of the Wiki, if Eternals should fail

• Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior

• Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Geller/GA1

Hey Mikehawk. Just letting you know that added a few comments to your GA review of Jordan Geller. Thank you!! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I will take a look! — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you once again Mikehawk. You gave me my first GA! It's been a pleasure working with you :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: Minoan Snake Tube

Hi, MHawk10 I'm working on a school project I appreciate the help but if you could just leave alone for a month that be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewDevine0 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Bhararisen

It is a place as you can see in OpenStreetMap wich is named Bhararisain instead of Bhararisen because it it translated from Hindi language to English.- https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Bhararisain#map=12/30.0955/79.2648

Or you can see here with same problem in name https://wap.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/areas-between-gairsain-bhararisain-to-be-developed-as-smart-114110401051_1.html Also, it is part of sub adminstrative division of Gairsain not same place as Gairsain.

Please remove deleting request. Thanks. 2409:4063:431F:BEC0:E3EA:DBFE:401:F5E0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Although I did not mention your name, and had not requested any actions, it seems I have to notify you. Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jonathan Roumie

On 3 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Roumie, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that actor Jonathan Roumie, who plays the character of Jesus Christ in American television series The Chosen, is also an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Roumie. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jonathan Roumie), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

		The New Page Patrol Medal of Merit
		For reviewing at least 200 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 209 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Archive bot?

Before the Wikipedia police gets to you, would you like me to set up a nice archival bot for your talk page, as a Hanukkah gift? JBchrch talk 06:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Sure! That would be nice; thank you so much for the kind offer. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I've now added it. It will most probably run within the next 24 hours, and I'll be monitoring that it worked as intended. Remember to dust it off regularly and change the oil once in a while. JBchrch talk 20:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:PragerU 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 03:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

WSJ Lede RfC

Hello Mhawk10 (talk · contribs), we are currently engaging in a discussion around the WSJ lede statement concerning the Journal’s editorial board. You made a change to this statement in the past. If you’d like to contribute to this conversation, please join us at Talk:The Wall Street Journal under the heading “Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary.” Take care. Stallion55347 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick clarifying question

At WT:MOS, you wrote that "Others still noted that there were indeed people who do feel confined/bound to their wheelchair".

Did this get claimed in any comments other than Dhtwiki at 21:17, 3 November 2021? I don't remember seeing any actual evidence that real people feel "confined" by their mobility devices. I only remember seeing one editor speculating that it might happen. If that's what you've based that comment on, you might want to remove it from the closing statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss Psiĥedelisto, who themselves identified as a "wheelchair-bound person" on 01:14, 21 November 2021? It was more than one user that I based that comment on. I agree that the phrasing was not optimal, and I've tweaked it to be more clear. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Addition

Hi there Mhawk10! I really appreciate the time you took to review my Australian Journal of Labour Law draft. Seriously, I know there is a huge backlog. Thank you so much! So, I know that creating a new article is a big deal, and actually I wanted to wait a while before I did this! However, in the list of journal articles on Wikipedia, there is a note saying it is incomplete. This is one of the articles listed, but without a bluelink to click on. This journal is referenced in dozens of court cases, in books, etc/ I can easily provide a reference list to those, but they are not really relevant to Wikipedia. I only created this article because it was a redlink listed in a Wikipedia list, and thought that it would be a good place to start. Most journal articles do not get any press coverage or anything, their notability comes from being cited in other academic papers. The only thing I could do is add a list to the article showing where it has been cited previously? Happy to do that. Most people never talk about a journal article unless they are citing it? If you feel there is no way this article will get published, I will just let this go. There are only two journals in the Wikipedia list which do not have entries, this is one of those two, I just wanted to complete that list. Most of the other journals are all stubs, because there is not much to say about them. I guess I could look up some famous cases or other scholars that have cited the journal? Anyway, thanks so much. Cheers, Such-change47 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)\

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_journals right here is the list, and Labour Law and Law & History are the only two in the list. Please could you look at the other entries? the James Cook University Law Review is only one sentence, as many of them are. I intend on expanding those :) Such-change47 (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glen Rock (boulder) has been accepted

Glen Rock (boulder), 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!

Rusalkii (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions 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 Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions

The article Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pseudo-reorganization acquisitions for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hi Mhawk10, Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thank you for your support and great work on Wikipedia. Happy Holidays. DMySon (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Review of Sacred Heart Enthronement Network article

Comments regarding the review say references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I was wondering if you could expound on these comments? Is an article in a newspaper considered significant coverage and not just a passing mention? Is a Catholic newspaper a secondary source independent of the subject? Could you be more specific?

Shenaw2016 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shenaw2016: Thank you for leaving this message. I left a detailed description of how I evaluated the sources atop the submitted draft. Many of the sources were plainly not independent due to their author also being involved in running the organization, though for other sources I've made notes on the page itself. Are there specific questions you have about that long comment that I left to explain the source analysis? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed descriptions. I did not see those initially. Here are some responses:

I wanted to give responses to some of your comments:

You wrote: “The practice of enthroning the Sacred Heart of Jesus itself seems to be given significant coverage by the sources present. However, the same cannot be said about the network.”

If I might digress a little, I remember when I was at a recruiting fair at college where companies were looking to hire recent graduates. At the Proctor and Gamble table sat three of their products, right at the front of the table. One of the products was Tide. This really stood out to me, seeing as I remember it from 40 years ago.

But, here I was evaluating companies and one company says “our company is our products. Without our products, we don’t exist. If you want to know about our company, look at our products.“

For the Sacred Heart Enthronement Network, the product is the practice of Enthroning the Sacred Heart of Jesus. So, in the sources, I am saying if you want to know about the organization, look at the product.

On a different note, the company I work for was recently bought. The CEO of the company that brought us said the reason they bought the company was because of the people. The people are the company. Take away the people and there is no company.

One of the comments I see is that the references do not talk about the network. However, I would say that they talk about the significant people that make up the network, so in that way, they talk about the network.

The one article that predates the founding of the organization talks about the network’s Executive Director’s grandfather. In another article is a reference to how the Executive Director’s grandfather influenced her. I see the background and influences on the outlook and formation of the Executive Director as significant factors influencing the network and important information to share about the network.

As for “The EWTN source that clearly is a talk show”, I see it as giving insights into the network. This is what the network does: promote Enthronements. It is one thing to write about what the network does. It is another to give a concrete example of the type of promotion that the network does.Shenaw2016 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shenaw2016: What I'm reading is that there is a (relatively) longstanding practice of enthronements to the Sacred Heart that predates the formal establishment of the network, and the reason that you've created the page on the network is because you see the network as being inseparably connected to the practice of enthronements. I'm going to push back a little on that—there are certainly some products that are notable even if the company that produces them is not itself notable. The reason for this is how Wikipedia intentionally designates notability for organizations and corporations at a very high bar (multiple reliable sources covering the company with in-depth independent content). Religious nonprofits (which this appears to be) has a slightly lower bar for being presumed notable, per WP:NCHURCH, but they don't necessarily inherit notability from their mission itself (the fact that a religious building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable, for example).

If there is reliable, independent sourcing that connects the Sacred Heart Enthronement Network to the practice of enthronement in some particularly unique and substantial way—such as being the only organization within the Church that has come up with this idea and engages in its promotion—I'd be interested to read it. It seems like what you're saying, however, is that the practice of enthronements predates the founding of the organization by quite a number of years. Content here also indicates that there have been a number of groups that have promoted Sacred Heart enthronements. Based off of my understanding, an appropriate analogous question with Tide would be: "Is significant coverage of laundry detergent sufficient to establish the notability of Tide as a company or brand?" I think the answer is no (unless we want to presume notability for all laundry detergent brands, which is a bad idea in my opinion).

I agree that the quality of a company's labor contracts-in-force is a factor to consider when undertaking a corporate acquisition, but having a notable set of employees doesn't really have a bearing on the corporation's notability itself since notability of an organization is not inherited from the people involved in running it.

I agree that the EWTN talk show can be usable to give insights into the network, but that particular show isn't one in which EWTN is acting in its capacity as a news organization. The video amounts more or less to an interview with the founders of the Sacred Heart Enthronement Network on a daytime Catholic talk show. This sort of thing might be helpful in understanding the purpose and goals of the organization, but it would be a very hard sell for that to be independent content for the purposes of notability.

Again, I'm fairly convinced that the practice of enthronement (in the context of devotion to the Sacred Heart) is notable based upon the sources you've provided (and also a google search). But, I don't think the organization is notable yet. Independent coverage of the organization in something like The Pillar, America Magazine, or Catholic News Agency might be helpful in establishing notability, but I can't find sources that cover the network itself in a way that would indicate notability after an extensive search.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin

Please express your views at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Jacobin_(magazine). To me, this looks like a supervote or over-verbosity failing to convey the very obvious consensus for Option 2.

Please note that one of the !voters for Option 2—3Kingdoms, mentioning of fringe/extreme views—has been indefinitely blocked for being too incompetent to edit in controversial areas and/or trolling. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

MHawk10, since you asked to be notified, I've unarchived the close review at WP:AN where you may comment if you wish. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

• From the editor: Here is the news

• News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements

• Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?

• In the media: The past is not even past

• Recent research: STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph

• Arbitration report: A new crew for '22

• By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers

• Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"

• Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021

• Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed

• Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all

• Humour: Buying Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Glen Rock (boulder)

On 3 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glen Rock (boulder), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Glen Rock is very gneiss? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glen Rock (boulder). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Glen Rock (boulder)), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Binger

On 14 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Binger, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Binger, the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, unsuccessfully ran for district attorney of Racine County, Wisconsin, in 2016? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Binger. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Binger), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:God 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, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've responded to your review at Talk:Zuby/GA2

Hi, there I've responded to your review at Talk:Zuby/GA2. I was not sure if the ping went through as I did not recieve a notification that it was sent.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, just wanted check you’re still planning on finishing /responding to the Zuby GAN?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Spy-cicle! Really sorry that his had slipped my mind. I'll take a look through the changes and let you know any response over the next hour or so. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Great thank you responded again.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure you saw the ping but have responded again.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Mhawk10, I just wanted to check if you were going to finish off the Zuby GA review, if you are busy no worries, I understand, I can always request someone else finish it off. Either way thanks for your help in reviewing it so far. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)