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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I wanted to reach out to say that, while I still disagree with you at the R&I RfC, I've found you to be the only person arguing the "No" case from a reasonable and empirical standpoint. You've made a good argument for your position, which itself is a reasonable and considered one, even if I disagree (I'll not go into the reasons why unless you're curious).

That's a relative rarity on the internet, and all but unheard of in this topic. I think you'd make a valuable contributor to that article, once the RfC is settled, serving as a sort of "devil's advocate" who is rather obviously not also a POV pusher. Someone to keep the rest of us honest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi MPants at work! I appreciate your note and the civil disagreement, and I'll certainly consider editing the page. I'm already involved in a controversial topic area, and that leads to a fair bit of time going into discussions, as well as some uh... bizarre interest from particularly strange corners of the internet that appears to have led to some personal attacks. So, I'm a bit hesitant to come in and edit in a super in-depth way on another highly controversial topic, though I'll probably make smaller edits/lurk on the talk page and contribute to discussions. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that sounds familiar... I used to see my WP handle pasted all over gaming blogs back when gamergaters were still pretending they hadn't already lost that culture war. I tried to find them, but the blogs are all down now, and I can't be assed to go trawling through archive.org for them. Apparently, I'm still The Enemy^TM of the "cold fusion community", though: just search for my name on this page to see how I'm actually the sock of some guy I've never even heard of.

I'm not surprised about GenZdong; anything short of sucking off secretary Pooh Bear marks you as an enemy of The People^TM who must be obsessed over creepily in circle-jerking threads. Posts and comments from them are frequent flyers at the Top Minds of Reddit, as well as other make-fun-of-political-morons subforums.

If all you feel comfortable doing is weighing in on some discussions, that'd be great. On pages like that, discussions is generally about 2/3 of the actual work, as almost any substantial edit must achieve consensus first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite a cheeky move to try to get my noggin thwacked based on an arbitrary rule since you couldn’t get rid of me another way. Know from this point on I will not be assuming good faith from you in any conversation if you’re this eager to grip a cudgel and swing. Paragon Deku ( talk) 16:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10, removing block notices and warnings is fine; the restriction at WP:UP#CMT is about declined unblock requests. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @ ToBeFree: My bad! Thank you for letting me know. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries :) ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Veverve ( talk) 10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Daszak.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. Whpq ( talk) 22:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I see on File talk:Peter Daszak.jpg that you have contested the deletion of the image. I am responding here because the talk page may be deleted before you see any reply. Although you have been unable to find a free image through extensive searches, that isn't sufficient to meet the requirement of WP:NFCC#1. It's not sufficient that a free image does not currently exist; it must also be the case that a free image cannot created. From the guidelines for non-free content, "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." With regards to the licensing, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 is not sufficiently free for use on Wikipedia because Wikipedia content can be used by others including commercial use even if Wikipedia does not use it commercially. Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses provides a list of free licenses acceptable for Wikipedia. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing you because you have closed the RFC on whether to list Turkey as "alleged by Armenia" or not in the infobox of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The result was to keep it as "alleged by Armenia". However an editor hides the words "alleged by Armenia", which I believe is a clear violation of the RFC results. Do you think this is acceptable? I would appreciate if you could look into this. Thank you. Grand master 23:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster:That certainly isn't how I would have implemented the RfC results, and I'd say that the user should either try to obtain a consensus prior to making the change, or that they should engage in discussions of their edit on the talk page in line with WP:BRD. In any case, I think that you did the correct thing in opening up a discussion on the talk page regarding this. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. It appears to be resolved at the moment, so we'll see how it goes. Grand master 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering why you reverted my edit. I'm pretty sure Mossadegh's nationalization of AIOC is common knowledge. Can you provide a proper justification? (you may want to write on my talk page, its less cluttered). In fact I'm unaware of whether Mossadegh led a strike on the AIOC. IIRC the strike was after the removal of Reza Shah but before Mossadegh reentered politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.214.74 ( talk) 04:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 138.75.214.74: It's more that we had a source giving one interpretation, then the source was removed and replaced with an alternate interpretation. If you can find a reliable source to support the change, then I wouldn't mind the change. It's the removal of the source currently in the article and changing the framing that led me to make the revert. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, documented within Wikipedia itself, already a proof of what I wrote? Not only that, as I had raised on the page, the source is outright misreflected because the 50/50 concession, proposed by the Brits were rejected twice by the vote of the Majils by Prime Minister Ala to ambassador Shepherd, and second by Mossadegh to Sir Richard Stokes (if you want further clarification I suggest reading Stephen Kinzer's introductory book on it). Lastly, there's just no reason why I would bother faking such obscure information. What have I got to gain from it? Would changing my edit to include a hyperlink to the wiki page of the nationalization of AIOC satisfy you?

Hello. I've recently learned that your name, Mikehawk10, a homophone of "my cock" and a commonly used offensive "joke" name, might not be in compliance with the username policy, as per WP:DISRUPTNAME. I'm respectfully asking that you please change your username, in line with this guideline. Instructions how to do so can be found at: WP:RENAME. Thank you, CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 14:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This has come up in the past, and I would point you to my January comments on this talk page to view my response. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I have read your cute story about seeing a hawk fly in your backyard and your parents naming it Mike, though you can probably agree with me that it is kind of hard to believe you would choose to use this name years later on Wikipedia, without knowing what it actually means, no? CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 10:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@ CPCEnjoyer, as the one who raised the matter in January, all I'm going to say is: Perhaps this is a conversation that should be had, but you should not be the one having it. This comes off as you looking to find some sort of policy violation by Mikehawk10, in retaliation for them raising several good-faith concerns about your editing. There's a lot of editors who look at an account that's a month old with 200 edits and a talk page full of warnings, and think, "Why isn't this user blocked for disruptive editing yet?" If you don't want to feed into that perception, the best thing you can do for yourself is avoid creating any new drama. If someone's username really is an issue, someone else will come along sooner or later to do something about it. Instead of setting the stage for another appearance at ANI, go hit Special:Random and find an article to improve. Or come help me clean out CAT:CN. Always plenty of work to be done there. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Tamzin: Rest assured, the perception of some editors does not (or at least should not) guarantee any sanction, especially when those perceptions are rooted in false allegations. Most of my edits are on talk-pages where I discuss my edits and at least half the warnings are unjustified according to policy anyway. Also, regarding: This comes off as you looking to find some sort of policy violation by Mikehawk10, in retaliation for them raising several good-faith concerns about your editing I will simply direct you above and say you might be talking to the wrong guy here. While I do not appreciate the patronizing tone, I might take you up on your CAT:CN offer, thank you. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 11:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to state my complete agreement with Tamzin above, and note that my last interaction with her was rather confrontational and unpleasant for both of us. You can rest assured that my agreement is entirely based on an unbiased look into the situation, and not the tribalism many people like to blame this sort of consensus on. I'd like to add that, while my last interaction with Mike was more collegial, we were still in complete disagreement on the matter at hand.

This is on top of the objectivity Tamzin already outlined for herself in making this comment. She's offering you some very good advice here, and you'd do well for yourself to take it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tamzin and MjolnirPants. I will add those in glass houses should not throw stones, @ CPCEnjoyer: you really need to be more self aware about this sort of thing. Perhaps you should consider changing your name to something which doesn’t demonstrate an intent to disrupt wikipedia if this sort of thing is a big issue for you? Most wikipedians just live and let live, you might get in less trouble if you didn’t pick so many fights. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists. Curiously, why did you use {{ subst:rm top}} and {{ subst:rm bottom}} rather than {{ subst:archive top}} and {{ subst:archive bottom}}? George Ho ( talk) 07:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ George Ho: That was an error. I will fix that. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10, I noticed this series of edits where you struck sock comments at SPI. I appreciate the thought, but could I ask you to leave case refactoring to clerks? While striking sock !votes in XFDs and other consensus-oriented discussions is good practice, we generally leave their comments at SPI intact, or hat if needed. Thanks. -- Blablubbs| talk 12:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Blablubbs: My bad! Thank you for letting me know this; I'll avoid doing so in the future at SPI. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 13:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent job on this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!!! — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 16:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Cattlematrix ( talk) 18:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your comment at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Thank you for your mediation offer, it is highly appreciated, but I think we can get back to that at a later time. At this point, we have no new sources there, just the same sources in different variations. In the meantime, we have a dispute at Talk:Zangezur corridor, with regard to how to better present different statements by president Aliyev, and their relevance to a particular article. Maybe you could provide your input as a third party, to help resolve the dispute? Thank you very much. Grand master 19:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mikehawk10. I would second what Grandmaster said about the need of a third opinion. If you could, please take a look at the discussion we had, and whether certain statements should or should not be included after land claims. Everything is written in detail in the discussion, and both sides demonstrated their views. Many thanks in advance. Regards, ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 09:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ ZaniGiovanni and Grandmaster: I'll take a look at it later today. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Your efforts are much appreciated. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 12:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ ZaniGiovanni and Grandmaster: I've posted something on the talk page. I really couldn't find a compromise that kept the current formatting of the section, and it appears that there was an error in the timeline that people had been using during the discussion. The section, as written, didn't really appear to clearly lay out the progression of the events in the controversy, and I hope that something along the lines of the recommendations provided might help move past an impasse. I couldn't provide final details (the first recommendation will require some time to figure out the exact rephrasing on), but I'm thinking that a change of framework of the sort proposed will benefit the article. My apologies in advance of your reading it for the length and for the delay on getting it up. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, your efforts are much appreciated. If you have any specific wording in mind, maybe you could propose it at talk? I will also propose my draft a little later, in order to resolve the dispute by consensus of all involved parties. Grand master 08:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again. I clarified my position a bit more in the talk section. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 09:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I though you might be interested in the current discussion on the John McGuirk talk page. The DCU source used has been amended to state, explicitly, that it does not classify Gript as a far-right source, but one of the editors is refusing to accept that and saying that - despite the source now clearly saying he is wrong - it should continue to support the far-right designation. I'm not terribly sure what the best course of action is in the face of that, but I thought the discussion might be of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What is considered a reliable source if Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:8102:40e0:a182:c33a:8e28:5790 ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles require references to external, reliable sources. This is so that we don't run into issues with circular citations in which information added to Wikipedia winds up becoming its own source. As a result, editors are generally asked to provide in-line citations when editing articles, so that we can ensure that all material added is verifiable in some capacity. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've barely edited on Wikipedia and now your pointing to obscure policies most people never heard of and threatening to ban me? Why is that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:8102:40e0:a182:c33a:8e28:5790 ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 2601:141:8102:40e0:a182:c33a:8e28:5790:, I understand that you are trying to add information to the article. When you add it, please include a citation to a reliable source, such as a reputable newspaper or online news publication. This way, the edit can abide by our sourcing guidelines. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok but no need for threats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:8102:40e0:a182:c33a:8e28:5790 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 2601:141:8102:40e0:a182:c33a:8e28:5790: Fair. Also, when you make a comment on a talk page, it's good practice to include a signature by including four tildes (~~~~) so that people can more easily understand the talk pages. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You act like I should know everything about Wikipedia despite just having joined. ---- Also since you seem to like to cite Wikipedia policies I'll cite one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

I DONT KNOW HOW, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW ALL OF WIKIPEDIA WORKS. HOW DO I PUT NEW SECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF A PAGE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:8102:40e0:a182:c33a:8e28:5790 ( talk • contribs)

You'd scroll to the bottom and type there. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

WHY DONT YOU MAKE WIKIPEDIA UABALE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARENT JIMMY FREAKING WALES AND HTML/CSS ENGINEERS?

Honestly, it needs to be better; a visual editor for the talk pages would be much better than the current situation. It's generally fine if you want to edit articles (since you can do it visually), but I feel you on the lack of an effective GUI for this sort of stuff. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Your an admin why don't you change a line of code so you can use the visual editor on talkpages instead of this feeling like I'm writing Python in Notepad.

I'm not an admin though. I'm just another editor. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Than why were you threatening me earlier? Why did you say you were going to ban me if your not an admin?

@Mikehawk10, there's a discussion of whether uptime is relevant to web hosting that you might be able to contribute to. EVhotrodder ( talk) 16:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reworded the RfC on Radio Free Asia so that the questions asked and subsequent surveying are more clear. Please move your response to the category of your choice if you wish to do so, and apologies for the formatting. Paragon Deku ( talk) 00:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to be sure you have one of these. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 03:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Smallbones: my pleasure; glad to help!

Heart ^(talk) 04:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gina Coladangelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you planning to respond to Talk:Moglix#COI problems? Because if not, I'm going to go ahead and just remove the template. 78.28.44.31 ( talk) 18:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hi Mikehawk10, thank you very much for all your work defending Chinese human rights related articles such as Uyghur Genocide, Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, Radio Free Asia, etc. It is always my wish to more actively join you in these articles. Hope you keep up the awesome work you're doing! Thomas Meng ( talk) 17:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, I hope all is well with you.

You opened four GA reviews at the beginning of July, and haven't edited on Wikipedia at all since July 4, leaving these reviews abandoned. Three reviews were begun, the fourth was simply opened without any followup.

There is currently discussion about this matter at WT:GAN#Open reviews by Mikehawk10, and unless you return right away with the intention to actively pursue these reviews, it seems likely that the three begun reviews will be reassigned. I plan to have the fourth ( Talk:Carlo Leone/GA1) put up for speedy deletion, so it can be made available, from scratch, to a new reviewer. I hope you understand why we feel we cannot wait any longer.

Thank you for your interest in GAN. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset: I sincerely apologize for my unannounced absence. I found at the time that Wikipedia (as you may be able to tell from my edit history) was taking up an extraordinarily large portion of my time, and I felt it was best to go cold turkey in order to get my life in order. This is no excuse to my failing to substantial work on GA reviews that I had started, and I will try to get back to working on those that have not been resolved as soon as possible. To that end, @ The C of E: my apologies to you as well. I see that I've stalled the nomination process on your article for months at this point, and I will make it a priority to review the work over the next day or two.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk. Many thanks for the courteous message on my talk page. I'm just curious as to what prompted this as I have never edited on the topic of Uyghur genocide. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 05:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You've edited Adrian Zenz with respect to his work on the Uyghur genocide. These edits include this edit from 27 August and this edit from 31 August. Zenz is only notable for his work relating to the Uyghur genocide, so his page also would appear to directly fall within the realm of the discretionary sanctions. I also directly mentioned the Adrian Zenz page in the original discussion that eventually led to the community sanctions, so I figured I'd let you know of them.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Again many thanks for sharing this with me. I believe I edited and discussed the Zenz* topic (a week ago) pretty appropriately and am smart enough (I hope) to realise that this is a sensitive topic without needing a WP noticeboard to tell me. I'm beginning to realise that I should stop trying to add nuance to China related topics due to the bureaucratic guideline/noticeboard intimidation that comes with it. Thanks once more and happy editing :) (*Zenz is of course notable for more than his work on Xinjiang but that's not for here.) Vladimir.copic ( talk) 05:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for unnecessary snark above. Being a grumpy so and so today. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 05:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, Vladimir.copic—we all have those days. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean to do those things that can be seen as mean and I hope you can forgive me. They were misinformed mistakes I made and I will not do them again. Cheers and have fun editing. ButterSlipper ( talk) 00:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This notice is being given to everyone who has reverted on the page Adrian Zenz this month. It is not an indication that you have done anything wrong. It is to inform you that the page Adrian Zenz is under a WP:1RR restriction until further notice in response to excessive edit warring on the page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ HighInBC: Noted. The page might also reasonably be under the WP:UYGHUR general sanctions regime, as a heads up. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I have already used that GS to caution a user today. However I have decided that since this article is about a person that the 1RR restriction should fall under the BLP DS. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You have already reverted within the last 24 hours [1]. Please self-revert your most recent edit [2] to avoid a 1RR violation. Yes reverts made before the 1RR restriction was put into place count towards your 1RR limit if they are within 24 hours. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict)@ HighInBC: Thank you for the message and sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. I didn't realize that this was the way 1RR applied, though I've self-reverted per your instruction. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Honestly I was not 100% certain myself. I consulted with a fellow administrator with more experience in the area and they suggested that it was a violation, I figured though that you would self-revert if asked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I notice you haven't edited in a while; hopefully it is because you're out doing something more fun than editing. Wishing you the best—and if you're out for good, thanks for all the cool shit you did on this website. jp× g 06:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@ JPxG: Hello. Thank you for leaving this; I'm really touched by it. I'm back and, while I (hopefully for my mental and social health) won't be spending 6-7ish hours a day making edits on this website, I'm aiming to continue to contribute in the future, albeit in a hopefully more relaxed capacity while I try to get my life in order. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) glad to see you back around! Elli ( talk | contribs) 15:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) ditto. We may disagree on our interpretation of some of the issues/policies at Uyghur genocide, but it's good to have your voice back in the conversation – I always appreciate hearing your thoughts. Jr8825 • Talk 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Elli and Jr8825: Thank you! — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry Mikehawk10 for being so belligerent I really hope you're doing well and our dispute hasn't stressed you out too much or taken a toll on you. Take it easy, your contributions are great. ButterSlipper ( talk) 06:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk. I'm glad you're back! Thanks, once again, for closing another difficult RfC. I think that was a fairly good close and you accurately summarized the arguments on both sides. Do you mind if I nitpick on something? In the RSP summary you wrote: WP:RSOPINION applies to Jacobin-published opinion content. The way I read the discussion was that virtually everyone agreed that Jacobin is a publication of opinion/op-eds, not straight news. In other words, they don't have a designated "opinion content" since everything they write is opinion. I think a better description would be the same one we use in the Quillette summary: Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim. or The Spectator: The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 06:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Makes sense; will do. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back JBchrch talk 04:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ JBchrch: Thank you! — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns about Softlavender by Butterslipper. Thank you. I'm leaving this since the editor starting the discussion failed to notify you despite mentioning your alleged involvement. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ButterSlipper ( talk) 08:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smoking and pregnancy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In utero.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Thanks for reading my draft and for your feedback that it is promotional. I have removed content that could be perceived as promotional. Let me know if it still looks promotional. Also, for newbies, it would be good if the feedback is specific. For instance, feedback directed to a specific section which then can be improved. Or if some of the citations are not considered considered reliable sources, would be great if the feedback points to those links. Except for a couple of bad apples who use wikipedia to promote, the rest of us might just be violating guidelines inadvertently. Targeted feedback will help improve content quality and encourage new wikipedians to have a positive learning experience. Elenatina ( talk) 05:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Elenatina: Not a problem. In general, we tend to avoid overly lionizing individuals, especially in lead sections of articles. If the article contains lots of peacock words, the article tends to read as if it is promotional content, rather than as if it is an encyclopedic article on the article's subject. Every fact in a Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, meaning that other people need to be able to verify the fact's authenticity. For biographies of living people, this is exceptionally important, as a piece of information within such a biography that is not attributed to a source is something that editors are supposed to immediately remove from an article upon discovering it. In general, reliable sources are sources that are:

1. Independence of the source the subject that they are covering;
2. A reputation of the source for fact-checking and accuracy;
3. Meaningful editorial oversight.

If you've got all three, the source is generally considered to be a reliable source for the claims explicitly made by that source. There are some exceptions (see WP:ABOUTSELF for one), but generally blogs, social media, and self-published sources are not considered reliable for facts.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

-- @Mikehawk10 Thanks for explaining Mike!

       According to cited sources, Jonathan “does a beautiful job”
[1] of portraying a "highly relatable Jesus that moves beyond some of the holier-than-thou, untouchable, unapproachable portraits of Jesus in the past" 
[2].

Is this the part that is promotional? I was under the impression that when we state something it has to have valid citations. Wondering if there is a way to check if a citation is valid according to wikipedia guidelines. Just wanted to understand so I can do better at my next draft.

Also, how do I request a field to be added to the Actor Infobox template? Elenatina ( talk) 07:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Elenatina: As for the first question, regarding if it's promotional, it's generally more important to attribute specific words to specific sources (and to incorporate those into a "critical reception" section). The essay from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary probably doesn't qualify as due on the page, seeing as it's an masters-level piece and there are guidelines for what sort of academic writing is considered reliable that generally call for a Ph.D. dissertation (and even at that level, dissertations should be used with some degree of caution owing to varying degrees of peer review across different degree-granting institutions). The portion cited to The Atlantic appears to be reliable for this purpose, but I'd make sure to attribute the opinion to the writer of the piece when describing it in the article. I'll take a crack at it on the draft page.

Regarding the question on if there is a way to check if a citation is valid... yes and no. There's a list of sources that have been discussed widely by the community, and that list generally can help you get a feel for the community consensus of how sources on that list are generally evaluated. But, in general, the best way to evaluate a source is to apply the principles of [[WP:RS|the reliable sources guideline (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, meaningful editorial oversight, and independence of the source from the subject it's covering). Sources that may have a bias in the facts they choose to report are also generally considered fine, so long as they meet the ordinary requirements for a source to be reliable, but you should always attribute them (particularly so if they are your only source for a fact) and make sure to not give them undue weight. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, yesterday I created an article in which you made several revisions, and I would like you to help me with something, I have a problem with 'References' and 'External Links', I can't make those headings on the right give the option to show or hide (in mobile view). Go through the article and maybe you understand better:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_U-23_Baseball_World_Cup

Thanks. FabianCabreraD ( talk) 04:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@ FabianCabreraD: I've fixed the error that was causing that. In the future, whenever you have a {{ col-start}} tag, you should to have a {{ col-end}} tag in order to have the remainder of the article process properly. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help, and also for teaching me that, thanks again FabianCabreraD ( talk) 13:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't be too sure. Perhaps at ANI. But at AE and ArbCom there is a pool small enough for it to work. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Deepfriedokra: You have a point when it comes to ArbCom. How many admins typically work on AE that this would feasibly become an issue? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. Not many. Lot's of burnout. I just started and might not last. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Looks like I have a good bit to learn about this sort of stuff. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 23:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Newt Gingrich. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. 'Rolling Stone is a good source of investigative journalism. Binksternet ( talk) 05:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Binksternet: No, there is a community consensus that it is not, at least for its political stories reported post-2011. Please self-revert. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't see any way how my could be construed as breach[ing] the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia, especially in light of the community consensus on the source and my explanation that was given in the edit summary. Would you care to elaborate? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate for the serious career journalists such as Tim Dickinson and Natasha Lennard who contributed excellent work. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in any case, such that a supposedly reliable source can be unreliable in some context, and vice versa. I notice that you replaced a Rolling Stone piece with a Politico piece reporting the exact same facts about Bernie Sanders, which shows how silly it was the decision to deprecate Rolling Stone. The "consensus" should be revisited with respect to individual journalists who write the articles. Binksternet ( talk) 06:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The decision to label its political reporting as generally unreliable was based off an analysis of its scope of editorial control, as well as its publication of false and fabricated information in this area. It's considered reliable for cultural and music reporting, but the consensus at RSN was unanimous enough that it was SNOW closed with respect to its political reporting. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I've noticed that you've been reverting many edits I recently made ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7). I'd kindly ask that you please stop reverting these edits, in light of the community consensus on the general unreliability of Rolling Stone for politics coverage over the past decade. If there are reliable sources that you have that contain the same or similar information as was within Rolling Stone, I have no objection to you adding the content back in some form, but I'd kindly ask you to please not mass-revert my edits while I try to prune out sources that are considered to be generally unreliable owing to the issues raised in the RSN RfC. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You recently nominated this page for deletion. I am the author of the page and I would like to understand why. What evidence did you find on the page for promotional content and why did you feel the subject was not notable enough to replace any text which you considered promotional? Amirah talk 16:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@ AmirahBreen: To be honest, the part of the article about the concept seemed to be WP:OR and seemed written more like a pitch on the notion that the company's product solved a problem that causes a pain point than like an encyclopedic section. The remainder of the article largely focused on fundraising and investment from others which, while referenced, appears to be material that is substantially based on press releases rather than in-depth coverage (c.f. WP:CHURN and WP:ORGIND). Based off the sources present in the article, the article therefore did not appear to cover a notable subject, but it came off as quite advertorial in tone. If you believe the article subject might be notable, I'd have no objection to a WP:REFUND provided that the article is moved to the draftspace until both its tone is improved and its notability is ascertained. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 22:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation, it does help. Yes, I would like to do more work on the article to bring it up to an acceptable standard, and will also take care that there is sufficient notability before attempting to publish it again.

Amirah talk 23:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, the article you cited is not Holodomor denial as defined by the Library of Congress according to the Holodomor denial article: to "diminish the scale and significance of the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 or assert that it did not occur." It does not deny the famine occurred, but that it was directed toward ethnic Ukrainians. As the article about the Holodomor says, "Whether the Holodomor was genocide [i.e., aimed at ethic Ukrainians] is still the subject of academic debate, as are the causes of the famine and intentionality of the deaths." I suggest that you strike it out, per WP:BLP. TFD ( talk) 15:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces:I do think that the author diminish[es] the scale and significance of the Holodomor by ruling out all causes other than pure environmental accident (which itself seems to be such a fringe position that it does not get a mention in Holodomor genocide question nor Causes of the Holodomor); stating that the famine was caused not by collectivization, government interference, or peasant resistance but by environmental causes. The author explicitly states his belief that The “Holodomor” fiction was invented in by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators who found havens in Western Europe, Canada, and the USA after the war and states that there has never been any evidence of a “Holodomor” or “deliberate famine,” and there is none today. Taken together, a reasonable person would take this to diminish the significance of the famine itself. Additionally, while the author is a college professor, the author has a background in Medieval literature and not Soviet history. Further, I do not see how this is possibly a WP:BLP issue; I am certainly not the only one to have observed this, and the author's Wikipedia page seems to have reflected this since a May series of edits by My very best wishes. If you believe this to be a BLP issue, I'd try to resolve it on the very author's Wikipedia page, but I don't think that reliable sources would lead us towards a consensus to do so. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 19:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't mention that three weeks later, Counterpunch published a rebuttal by Proyect of the first article by Grover Furr. Furr stated that his article was based on the research of Mark Tauger of West Virginia University. Proyect says that Tauger has a "reputation as a leading authority on the famine, while noting he has never written a book about it. [3]

In their 2004 book about the Ukrainian famine, Davies and Wheatcroft analyze and reject Tauger's analysis, but they do not call him a holodomor denier. They provide a good analysis of the political factors influencing the debate. (pp. xiii ff.) [4]

While Tauger is popular in Russia, he reviewed Anne Applebaum's book on the famine for the History News Network, [5] which is hosted by George Washington University and has editorial oversight. [6]

In essence, Counterpunch published two interpretations of the famine, both of which are acceptable in mainstream academic sources. This is not similar to holocaust denial.

I have been aware of My Very Best Wishes for over a decade. The article about Furr does not say anyone has accused him of Holodomor denial. We cannot call him that without sources.

TFD ( talk) 21:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is not an authority on Holodomor denial or human rights in general. The article provided does however appear to meet their definition of Holodomor denial which you’ve provided. Not really sure what you’re trying to get at here but there isn’t a clear BLP issue here. You should desist. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, one of the policies of Wikipedia is no synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case you are combining what a writer wrote and the definition of Holodomor denial and concluding he meets the criteria. While you may or not be right, policy requires that these conclusions be sourced. While WP:BLPCRIME requires a court judgment before accusing someone of a crime, WP:BLP only requires that a reliable source has stated something as a fact before we include it. Wikipedia is supposed to report conclusions in reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors as fact. TFD ( talk) 01:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You’re the only one talking about the writer, everyone else is talking about an article... It was you who made the author the focus in some warped attempt to turn this into a BLP issue. Just FYI genocide denial isn’t a crime in most places, certainly not in the US. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia article said "A 2017 piece in the magazine also appears to deny the Holodomor, calling it fiction" linked to an article you wrote, you would think you had been accused of Holodomor denial. The U.S. is exceptional in not having hate crime laws, owing to how they interpret the free speech clause of the Bill of Rights 1789. But most countries outlaw hate speech. The reason holocaust denial is hate speech is that it implies that "the Jews" made it up in order to get sympathy. Holodomor denial is hate speech because it denies the famine. We are supposed to present the views of experts rather than our own. It may be that you judgment on the famine and Taiwan and the other topics you edit are correct, but we need to report what reliable sources say in proportion of their degree of acceptance rather than our personal opinions. Reliable sources disagree on whether Stalin targeted ethnic Ukrainians. TFD ( talk) 02:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I might presume as such, but technically I would be wrong. But then again if I had actually written the article I probably wouldn’t care because its what I believe after all. Hate crime laws in the United States most certainly exist but you are right in that they don’t criminalize Holdomor denial (or genocide denial more broadly). BLP does not apply to statement about an article which are not directly about its author. I’l stick to the sources and you can stick to your oddly detailed for being so wrong statements about US law and what constitutes hate speech. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 03:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict)@ The Four Deuces:This came out of a WP:RSN discussion, where users are allowed to ignore WP:NOR, since it isn't in the article space. I've provided you my quotes above, and I don't see it as a stretch to say that an article that says there has never been any evidence of a “Holodomor” and that The “Holodomor” fiction was invented in by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators does, in fact, appear to deny that there ever was such a Holodomor. There is no WP:BLPCRIME component to this; nobody is accusing anybody of committing a criminal offense, and I don't see any reasonable interpretation that would lead us to conclude that any statement I have made is actually an accusation against a United States citizen of criminal activity. If you feel like the biographical article could be improved by reliable sources, you are welcome to add them and to propose changes. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you Please check an Draft Draft:Kolkatar Harry because it's taking lot of time for review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:30c:fafb:c131:5049:a024:aeb4 ( talk) 19:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It's on the borderline for me; I'd prefer someone else take a look. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Mikehawk10. I noticed some of your BLPPROD nominations, and I just wanted to make sure you're familiar with the requirements for that process. WP:BLPPROD requires that, in order to be eligible for deletion, the article must "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography". As you can see, that's a really low standard: if the article contains, for instance, a link to the subject's website, Twitter account, or IMDb page, it's not eligible for BLPPROD even though those sources are obviously unreliable. In the same way, it doesn't matter if the links are labelled "references", "sources", "external links", a link from the infobox, or even links in the body of the article: any sources in any form can preclude BLPPROD deletion. That means that articles like Graham Hunt (darts player), Joseph Woods (poet), and Dick van Dijk (darts player) shouldn't nominated through this process, since they each have at least one link to a source that says something about the subject. Of course, you can still use CSD, ordinary PROD, or AfD on such articles, but it's important that BLPPROD be reserved for cases where there really are no sources whatsoever. (If you're curious about why, you may find this RfC interesting reading.) Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for all your work for the project. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Extraordinary Writ: Noted. I'll avoid doing tagging articles with external links with BLPPROD in the future. My apologies for the inconvenience this caused you. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 19:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna double up on this thread regarding your BLPPRODing of Vytautas Šustauskas. Basically, instead of just tagging something that is obviously notable and easily sourceable for BLPPROD, such as this article, just WP:Do it yourself. I generally use the 30 second rule: if I estimate it'll take 30 seconds or less to get a source, I'll just do it myself; in this case, it took me at most 10 seconds to go to the Lithuanian Wikipedia article and pull one of the various sources. Just a helpful tip Curbon7 ( talk) 21:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giles Cotton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circa.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike. While on the whole I found your article in the Signpost a thought-provoking read, I am really bothered that you chose to quote Vami IV's accusations against me without offering me any chance to respond or even notifying me. I edit under my real name and Signpost articles are indexed by search engines; portraying me as the only named person responsible for the "corrosive atmosphere" at RfA without any counter-narrative has the possibility of causing real-life harm to my reputation.

I would appreciate it if you could edit the quote so that includes only Vami's experiences of his own RfA, without the (unsubstantiated and untrue) accusations about others. –  Joe ( talk) 08:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Can you please at least respond to this? –  Joe ( talk) 05:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I contacted Smallbones after seeing your concerns expressed above. I would direct you towards the note that was left on the talk page of the discussion report for the response from The Signpost. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Mikehawk10 and Smallbones: Okay, but this doesn't respond to what I've asked at all... I can barely recognise that it is a reply to me. I haven't asked you to remove anything from comments. I asked here on Mike's talk page, not there. There is no long-running dispute; assuming the two users are myself and Vami IV, we've interacted a total of twice: at his RfA, and in that comment section. The attempted retreat to bothsidesism makes no sense because Vami IV is mentioned as the victim of a "corrosive atmosphere", which he claims himself to be, and I am mentioned as its cause (again, the only named person to be blamed, under my real name), which he claims me to be. You are repeating this negative claim about me without evidence, without qualification, and without giving me any chance to respond. We are not "described in as disagreeing" as you put it Smallbones because my perspective isn't presented at all. If you are going to claim journalistic protection to stop others from editing your articles, you need to act like journalists, and this isn't it.

And honestly, will your article suffer at all from simply omitting the part of the sentence that mentions me? I came to you because I thought you would be reasonable about this, but it's a WP:BLP issue as well as a personal attack. –  Joe ( talk) 06:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Joe Roe: I recognize that you have the right to complain and take it to an admin if you don't like my decision. Please email me if you think I'm wrong on the following set of facts:

• You participated in an RFA where you were involved in a very spirited discussion where one of your edit summaries was removed (possibly as a personal attack)
• The candidate from that RfA mentioned you in the RfC on RfAs as being a cause of distress for him in his RfA.
• You did not ask for that comment to be removed as a personal attack against you.
• You object to the inclusion of the comment in The Signpost story as a personal attack.

If those facts are correct - there's nothing I can do for you. Take it to an admin - I don't object to that at all. I will simply state that the above facts show that we did not break any Wikipedia rules. I'll accept the admin's decision automatically, unless they assert that there are special rules that The Signpost has to follow that others don't have to follow. The rules that apply are the same for any other Wikiproject, essential the rules for talkpages. We make every attempt to follow those rules.

BTW we do not ask for any "journalistic protection" We must follow the Wikipedia rules and admins, etc enforce those. We also choose to follow the standard rules of ethics for journalists. We enforce those ourselves. Combining the 2 sets of rules - we follow the stricter rule in each case - make the overall set much stricter than the 2 sets. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 14:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I have said something that makes this situation seems more complicated than it is. My apologies. I'll try again:

Your article includes unsourced negative material about me, a real-life living person. It does not say that my comment was "a cause of distress" for Vami, which of course is true and within his rights to say. It says, under the heading "corrosive atmosphere at RfA", that I fought "running battles" with the "the entire planet" over a "now-redacted edit desc" and my "general attitude towards [Vami IV]". None of that is true or, more importantly, substantiated. I did not object to Vami IV's original post because a) it's half way down an obscure RfC page not the Signpost and b) I didn't see it until now.

I am an admin, and even if I weren't, I could have simply followed WP:BLPREMOVE/ WP:BLPTALK and removed this myself. However, I remembered that you had strong feelings about non-editors editing Signpost pages (from an old arb case, I think, correct me if I'm wrong), so out of respect for what you guys do, I instead came here to ask Mike to do me the courtesy of removing it himself, on the basis that it is not usually considered good journalistic practice to repeat negative accusations about someone without giving them a chance to respond.

Now, is it enough that I, an admin and until recently oversighter, is telling you that this is a violation of BLP that needs to be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPTALK? Or do you need to hear it from someone else? –  Joe ( talk) 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you are an involved admin, so I would much prefer an uninvolved admin. Also, you've been around the block on related questions without having any success (as far as I can tell) so this is not some emergency action. Just get an uninvolved admin to look at this.

The quote was obviously written by the person it was attributed to in the article. Our article is factual. Your argument is with the original author, not us.

You participated in the RfC quoted. You could have disputed the quoted material there. If you don't deal with the RfC material as a personal attack, I don't see how you can accuse us of a personal attack.

Please respnd to me via email if you have anything more to say to me. Or send it to an uninvolved admin, Or just drop it. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 16:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been around any blocks, Smallbones. I commented on the piece, then I asked Mike. I am disappointed that he has abrogated responsibility for what he published and disappointed at your unsympathetic and bureaucratic response to a good faith request. –  Joe ( talk) 16:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Smallbones without getting involved in this quarrel, I would suggest that you nonetheless remove the material in question. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind and withdrawing the AfD after seeing the sourcing develop. The article was in pretty crappy shape when you nominated it, and it understandably drew your attention as a deletion candidate. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Cbl62: Not a problem. Is there a way to get access to a free tier of newspapers.com? I'm seeing it come up a bit in AfD discussions and I feeling like it would be a helpful resource for ensuring that I'm thorough before I nominate things like that for deletion. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a basic tier available through Wikipedia Library. I pay for full access, so I'm not sure what the limitations are on the basic tier. Cbl62 ( talk) 08:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I accepted Draft:Robert K Cunningham which you had previously rejected for lack of significant coverage for notability under WP:GNG. But the relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work, or by certain highest level awards or memberships fellowships in the most prestigeous societies, and the IEEE is specifically mentioned as one of them in the guideline as being one of them.

This information was clearly stated in the draft version you saw, [7] .The biographical information is sourced also. It's to a reliable source, his university webpage; this is considered sufficiently reliable for routine unchallenged biographical facts. And there's a good source for the key factor, IEEE.

You may disagree with my interpretation of WP:PROF, but it is the one that is used in practice at AfD. There are many rules used in practice at AfD that I disagree with, but when I review drafts, I do so in accordance with the current customary practice.

You statement on Draft:Leo Benardo that "All facts that could reasonably be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source though the individual is probably notable" is worded exactly right. But there were no facts in that article that could be reasonably challenged. I accepted it, tho just to be sure, I added some of the refs already inline to other statements they support. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@ DGG: You're absolutely correct that I misapplied WP:NBIO where WP:NPROF applies here—I will keep this in mind for the future and I am sorry for making you do unnecessary redundant work in viewing the content of the article again. However, I'm not so sure about the there were no facts in that article that could be reasonably challenged is correct. There are facts in the article at that time that could be reasonably challenged in the section on his family life section of the page. The source describes his marriage and that he has a son that was born in October 1994. However, being that it's a source published in 1995, it does not describe him having his second son, and I think that the phrasing could reasonably be challenged based on the sources. After a search of mine only found a wikitia page ( https://wikitia[DOT]com/wiki/Robert_K_Cunningham), a credited copy-paste of this version of the article describing that he has two sons and an Obituary in the Washington Post that says that the father of (someone with the same name as) the article subject has "two grandsons". Using the first would be a potential case of WP:CITOGENESIS, while using the second would veer heavily into WP:OR territory since I'd have to find a source excluding the possibility that (a) the individual that's the subject of the obituary is indeed the Wikipedia article subject's father and that "Barbara C. Clark" did not have any sons. As a result, it's not clear to me that there's a reliable source to support this. I understand that this may be small, but it looks like unsourced information to me. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The above being said, you have much more experience than me in this area. If I'm being too picky regarding these things, please let me know. I'd be happy to receive pointers so as to improve the quality of my reviewing. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right about where problem areas are: I deal with this in bios--in any field-- by removing information about family except name of spouse and number of children, unless any of these are notable. Similarly for hobbies, etc. Usually they're conventional PR -- if in detail they're unprovable COI, or copied from an obit supplied by the family, just as you suggested. (But see WP:EINSTEIN--if the person is really famous, then there will be good sources) This is part of one of the longest standing basic rules: for unprovable BLP, just remove it. When I do, it's out of precaution, just as I remove or rewrite stuff that looks like it might be copyvio However, at AfC we're not really asked to analyze at this level-- the only rule is to decide if it will pass afd. If you want to work at this level of analysis, great! but do it at AfD , where it's needed. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mikehawk10, regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savoy (restaurant): from a NPP perspective, I would have probably draftified the article instead of nominating it for deletion, which is what I tend to do with poorly sourced articles about plausibly notable subjects. JBchrch talk 05:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I'll keep this in mind for the future. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:NadVolum disruptive behavior. Thank you. I mentioned you in relation to my concerns over stuff another editor has done, but I'm not suggesting you did anything that causes concern. Nil Einne ( talk) 23:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mike, you might like to consider withdrawing this AFD. An obviously good-faith effort, but you seem not to have been able to find what others subsequently found. Cheers, St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nicely done. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there – while I will not contest your ultimate fail of COVID-19 contracts in the United Kingdom on the basis of NPOV issues, I do want to mention that the presence of images is not a requirement for GA status. The criteria page specifically states The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided. I know I, personally, would prefer an article have no images than have irrelevant ones just for the sake of having images. — Ghost River 04:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@ GhostRiver: I agree with you that including wholly irrelevant images for the sake of having images is bad and no different than fluff. However, even the photos of relevant individuals (or images in relevant infoboxes) would be an improvement over zero images. I agree that it would be rather odd to quick-fail a GA nom on the sole basis of an article being poorly illustrated—images, it was the extent of the failure on multiple criteria that led me to quick-fail this GA nom rather than putting it on hold. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would be able to share your thoughts on Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war for the 'RfC Turkey as a full belligerent' and 'RfC Pakistan as Support' discussions. To be clear for any talk page watchers that might make canvassing accusations, I am asking the closer of the previous similar RFC, who even disagreed with me last time, to participate in this one as well. All I ask is that you acknowledge the evidence and arguments put forth. Your closing words for the last RFC were that future new information could reverse the consensus, and that is exactly what I presented. -- Steverci ( talk) 19:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Steverci:I would prefer to not get involved in the substance of the dispute—I generally prefer to stay out of WP:AA2 content disputes entirely except to (a) serve as an uninvolved closer or (b) serve as an informal mediator. Part of this is due to my lack of in-depth knowledge of the topic area's history and part of this is my desire to avoid editing in too many controversial topic areas at the same time (I created the WP:GS/Uyghur nexus article as a part of a class project and I'd prefer to engage in ). You're correct in noting that my close stated that additional information could change the consensus; I wrote consensus can change in light of new information published by reliable sources to indicate that the close was made based on the coverage brought into the fold at the time of that discussion. And, it seems like you've provided additional information relating to the situation. However, given that there's no fixed definition of "belligerent" accepted by the community for use in that infobox, it's going to be up to local consensus achieved in the ongoing discussion regarding Turkey as to ascertain what the appropriate listing is. A similar logic would apply to being listed as "support"; there doesn't appear to be a community consensus on a guideline, so it's up to local consensus as to what exactly would be required for it to be WP:DUE to list a country as "support". Of course, people an make arguments as to what's reasonable, but, again, I don't want to make myself substantially involved on this sort of question. Additionally, even though I closed the previous discussion, my word should carry no more weight than any other editor who would analyze the situation in the same way.

Additionally, I don't think that you're engaging in any sort of conduct violation by launching the RfC in good faith. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not do comment-free relisting at MfD. it is not helpful. It does not attract fresh attention, but annoyingly shuffles the MfD list order. Old discussions get more attention by being old and in the old business section. Relisting is a good idea if there was something new discovered and old participants need to be called back, or if you have have a wise re-focusing comment. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@ SmokeyJoe: Noted. I'd seen no-comment relisting on AfD a bunch, so I had assumed it was also OK on MfD. I'll avoid doing this sort of thing in the future and I apologize for the inconvenience that this may cause. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mikehawk.

Even at AfD, although comment-free relists are common, it is really good when the relister does make a wise refocusing comment.

NB. A relister should be a qualified closer, prepared to close, even as "delete". Having decided that relisting is appropriate mean that you have read the discussion through.

Why not !vote? Maybe because when you are in the mindset to close, it is different to the mindset for !voting.

If you have read through the discussion, and decided it is not ready to close, and are not in the mood to !vote, why not consider answering as the relisting comment: "Why is this not ready for closing, and what new contribution to the discussion might lead it towards a consensus?" SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely taking this advice to heart. It might be the case that I approach how I read a discussion differently when I'm preparing to close and when I'm preparing to comment, though you bring up a good point about getting involved when consensus isn't clear and I'd have something to contribute. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As the title implies there are issues with the editors working on Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic currently. I noticed you recently were involved in a discussion on a potential copyvios on that page. There is also an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents section I have recently brought up on one of the editors involved. Some thoughts and eyes on the article would be appreciated. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 03:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the ANI thread. I've dropped a comment. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you recently closed this discussion. Per WP:NACD, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins". That is the case here, because the discussion raises complicated and contentious issues related to our notability guidelines and their interaction with other policies. Your very brief comment indicates that you did not reflect on these questions. Please undo your closure to allow an experienced administrator to close the discussion. Thanks in advance! Sandstein 06:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. I don't think that it was a close call, though I'm happy to expand and give a full rationale in the closing summary atop the page if you would like me to. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no need to expand on your rationale, because you should not have closed that AfD to begin with. Please don't do that again. I've asked for your closure to be undone at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 7. Sandstein 07:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victims of Communism Memorial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victims of communism.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Panjshir conflict 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 09:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jones (third baseman). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lightburst ( talk) 15:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Lightburst: Currently away from my computer, but I will comment when I return. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 18:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 18:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

While on that subject, I don't necessarily disagree with this close, but something (mostly the depth of the indent blocks on the page prior to your NAC) tells me you're likely to catch hell for it... be careful out there! jp× g 11:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)