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

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

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

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

But I created this RfC... — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wingnut (politics) 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 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

	恭喜发财！
Happy Chinese New Year!

EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 22:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Tribunal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

— Maile ( talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I must say I thought it was a just lovely composition. Visually appealing too. From now on when I need to compile a lengthy response, I'll just copy+paste whatever formatting you used there. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain the rationale behind passing a Music GA for an article that fails WP:NMG - as noted by two editors during assessment discussion. Will need to be kicked back for community reassessment if staying under music. Acous mana 21:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part in the GA criteria where subject notability guidelines have an impact on GA status? If you believe that the article subject is non-notable, then take the article to articles for deletion. If your objection to the article's GA status is that it is misclassified, then so be it. The WP:GAN#MUS is for... performers, groups, composers, and other music people. Zuby clearly is a music person, as he composes his own raps and performs thems. He doesn't really fit in under WP:GAN#GOVT (calling him a political figure seems odd considering he isn't an activist and hasn't run for any public office). I'm amenable to him being filed under WP:GAN#CULTURE (which includes Internet culture), but I really don't think that there's any reason that he can't be listed under music when that is his primary occupation. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

individual in no way qualifies as notable with respect to music, it's not his "occupation," there is zero evidence using WP:RS to support this assertion, and again, you noted this yourself in the review notes. Your eagerness to push this GA while ignoring a notable conflict with WP:NMG seems very odd. Why did you move to pass GA-Music when it was clear others had already raised valid concerns? And why, having already indicated that WP:GAN#CULTURE or miscellaneous would suffice, did you take a unilateral decision to move forward with category 'music.'? I'm struggling to make sense of your actions here. Acous mana 00:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I did it because that is what it was nominated for and I really don't think that the classification of what sort of good article is worth arguing with the nominator over unless it's really egregious. Zuby fits both music and culture, so I don't see anything based in a guideline that would suggest us being required to move his article. That being said, I've moved it per your request; you can sort it out with the nominator if there's any lingering debate. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 02:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The subject is widely described as a rapper by reliable secondary sources. If you believe he is not notable, nominate the article to AfD.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

subject fails WP:NMG, no two ways about it. Note, you failed to address item 3a (left on "hold," should have been addressed within a week, but wasn't), and then this article was passed - almost two months later - as a GA without a closing assessment, it's all very curious. Acous mana 09:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm much less concerned about all this, and much more concerned about the glaring factual error in the article's second paragraph. Udezue said he does not think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports and said that he broke the record to demonstrate the flaws of the arguments of those who believe they should be. Udezue didn't break any record. He posted a video on Twitter snarkily claiming to break a record as a publicity stunt. It is outrageous for that publicity stunt's claim to be repeated in the encyclopedia's voice on any article, let alone a GA. WP:SOFIXIT, yes, and I'm quite prepared to fix it, but first I'd like to raise this in the broader discussion of if this should be a GA. Because if I cut that bit, well, that's really the only claim in the lede that would (if true) explain why either of these incidents is significant. This added to the controversial issue of transgender people in sports also needs to be cut as, to be frank, not really a coherent sentence. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 11:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This should really be at Talk:Zuby but there is nothing wrong and said that he broke the record to demonstrate the flaws of the arguments of those who believe they should be as we are attributing the record to him "said he broke". It would be different if it read: After breaking the record, Udezue said he did it demonstrate the flaws of the arguments ... as that says he broke the record in wikivoice. If you want to continue this please do it at Talk:Zuby. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

a) As Mhawk10 has already said, where in the GA criteria does subject notability guidelines have an impact on GA status? b) it's all very curious Please WP:AGF on the reviewer. GA criteria is the same regardless of the topic area (with a couple of exceptions for fiction and medicine, music does have its own MOS but this is not included on the GA criteria). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

feel free to explain how an article that simply cannot, in the first instance, be considered a music article - because it fails WP:NMG - can suddenly assume music article status following a GA - it's illogical. But then again, that might explain the eagerness to nominate this as a GA: was attempting to circumvent our guidelines on notability for music articles intentional? Acous mana 09:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You have still have failed to show me the link in guidance and policy pages between the SNG ( WP:NMG) and GA topic area (Music, specifically Other music articles WP:GAN#MUS). WP:GAN#MUS states This includes [...] music compositions, performers, groups, composers, and other music people.. Please show me the page which dictate NMG to WP:GAN#MUS. NMG is for notablity guidelines, and the article is notable (feel free to AfD it if you disagree). "was attempting to circumvent our guidelines on notability for music articles intentional" Again, please show me the link between these two separate pages, Zuby is a music person/performer that is all that is required. Also, if you actually read the NMG it states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Passing or failing one of the criteria does not gurantee notablity nor does it gurantee it is not notworthy it is general rule helpful for determining expected coverage ( WP:BASIC).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) @ Acousmana: I think you are seriously misunderstanding the applicability of WP:NMG here. It's a notability guideline for what musicians, groups, songs, etc, are likely to be notable. It is not a guideline for what is considered "a music article". Zuby appears to be primarily a rapper, even if this isn't the only source of their notability, listing them as a music GA is perfectly reasonable. Elli ( talk | contribs) 11:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It also seems like you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill here. Out of all the things to argue about on Wikipedia, what category a GA should be listed in is just... really minor and inconsequential? It impacts next-to-nothing. Elli ( talk | contribs) 11:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

let me reiterate, said individual fails WP:NMG on every count - it's not a music article - none of this is difficult to comprehend, unless: 1) there is a vested interest; 2) one is a fanboy who will not countenance denigration of their idol. Acous mana 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Acousmana: If you really want to keep pursuing this line, do you really believe that Zuby fails WP:MUSICBIO#1? If so, why haven’t you nominated the article for deletion? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 13:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

why? well, because it's not a music article, and the guy is not a musician, so it is therefore not a music bio. We've been over this, the notability of this individual rests almost solely on coverage surrounding the false arrest incident and reactions to his transgender stance - remove both of those from the equation and there is nothing of note. It's someone piggybacking a few scatterings of notoriety in order to try and promote a non-existent music career, and for whatever reason, a single editor has assisted with this. Of course all of this could change: he might chart, get a distribution deal with a major, have an album reviewed in [insert notable publication here] etc., but until then, not a notable artist. Acous mana 18:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Three things:

1. There is precisely zero in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that requires articles to pass any part of NMG to be considered “music” for the purposes of where a GA is listed. Even if there were, as I show below, Zuby would actually pass WP:NMG.
2. If I were to write an article on The Hillbilly Thomists, a band, the only part of WP:NMG it would pass is WP:MUSICBIO#1—which is to say that it is a Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) and it passes GNG. (For what it’s worth, they do 1 2 3 4 5.) The band has never charted, nor really had mainstream success, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t described by remarkable sources as a band—that’s exactly what the group is. They do not need to pass some part of WP:NMG other than WP:MUSICBIO#1 to pass NMG, of course.
3. Nowhere in MUSICBIO#1 does the guideline say that the significant coverage has to be about the musician’s music. All beyond WP:SIGCOV that is required to pass this is that Zuby is a rapper. While he is not a very successful rapper, this is how reliable sources describe him. As a result, he therefore passes WP:MUSICBIO#1 and thereby satisfies WP:NMG. Of course, this has no deterministic bearing on what category he goes in (see point #1), but I think you might want to reconsider the basis of your argument.

— Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that your entire argument rests on what is perhaps misapprehension of the statement: "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials."

Within the broader context of WP:MUSICBIO it's clear "notability criterion" relates specifically to music, it's implicit. Let's look at the sentence that immediately follows: "It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criteria number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources..

The notability context is music, the "false claims" relate to music etc. It does seem that your misapprehension of this first statement runs through into criteria #1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Again it is implicit that coverage of the subject's music is the context here, not peripheral bio stuff. All other criteria (2-12) are specific to notability in the field of music. Zuby fails them all. The WP:MUSICBIO guideline is concerned with notability/coverage in the field of music/music press etc. nothing else. Acous mana 12:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{ db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{ db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't handle the edit conflict correctly. - Donald Albury 22:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem! This stuff happens all the time. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 22:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey I made several constructive changes to this mall, and removed several trivial statements and shortenrd many unnecessary announcements. Timetravlerdiva ( talk) 03:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Timetravlerdiva! I've self-reverted; this edit flagged in Huggle as likely non-constructive, which I intended to revert due to the spelling error, but I did not mean to revert all of your edits to the page. My apologies for the inconvenience this may have caused. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 03:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetravlerdiva ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Repatriation tax avoidance 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski ( talk) 16:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Curbon7 ( talk) 03:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	Consider this an apology, things are just a little tense right now! Curbon7 ( talk) 05:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Curbon7: Not an issue! I hope all is ok. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

―  Tartan357  ^Talk 09:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It is too late to sign up for the WikiCup this year, nominations having closed at the end of January. You will be welcome to take part in 2023! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Any particular reason you reverted my edits? You left none in your edit summary. 107.127.46.19 ( talk) 23:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That was a misclick. I apologize for that and I have self-reverted. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 23:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit saying there was no visual evidence that Ukraine downed any IL-76s. This does not require a citation as there quite literally is no evidence to refute IdkIdc12345 ( talk) 01:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

While this is probably moot now, that isn't how WP:V works. If we are affirmatively stating that there is no visual evidence of X in the article, then we need a source that says that there is no visual evidence of X. If the reporting on the topic does not specifically mention visual evidence, then we cannot synthesize that there is no visual evidence. In cases where media are not confirming claims, but claims are widely reported, it might just be better to attribute claims to the person/state organ making them. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 18:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Repatriation tax avoidance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Repatriation tax avoidance for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski ( talk) 13:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your close, could you clarify how "consistency" arguments should be considered, given there is no consensus for either A or B? BilledMammal ( talk) 00:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@ BilledMammal: Can you clarify a bit what you mean? Are you asking for specific guidance regarding arguments that invoke the consistency criterion in WP:AT? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes; given that there is no consensus for any consistent format, I think that may be helpful. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I really can't give specific guidance on how arguments involving consistency should be weighed across all bilateral relations, since the discussion really didn't reach a consensus on that. Consistency is a part of the WP:AT and still matters, but the close finds no consensus that one pattern across all bilateral relations article currently exists on Wikipedia that is so dominant that it is the be-all-end-all in every discussion on naming bilateral relations articles. The inability of the community to reach a consensus on a naming convention indicates that there is no community consensus that claims of consistency should be the sole reason for naming a bilateral relations article a certain way. In other words, consistency is one among five explicit criteria; evaluation of proposed titles must be weighed with respect to the strength of arguments made in light of the article titling policy as a whole. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 06:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Can you indicate specific reasons for declining the article "Novosibirsk-Vostochny railway station"? According to Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), artificial features related to infrastructure can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. There are articles Novosibirsk railway station, Novosibirsk-Zapadny railway station, Novosibirsk-Yuzhny railway station in English Wikipedia. Why is not Novosibirsk-Vostochny railway station good enough? All intercity trains following Trans-Siberian Railway and Turkestan–Siberia Railway make mandatory stops at these stations. If we have the articles about Main, Western and South railway stations we need to have the article about Eastern too, otherwise it would violate uniformity. K8M8S8 ( talk) 07:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@ K8M8S8: Yes, railroad stations are notable when they meet WP:GNG. My reason for rejecting was that the sources provided didn't appear to meet WP:GNG. The first two citations are from the same book, while the third citation doesn't appear to give WP:SIGCOV as far as I could ascertain. Can you indicate why you believe that the third citation contributes towards significant coverage? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 03:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Mhawk10: I've improved the text of the article and added new sources. One of these sources tells about the station in the context of the development of Novosibirsk city and Western Siberia railway network. Second source is the news about reopening the new passenger railway terminal building after reconstruction. Please check out. K8M8S8 ( talk) 10:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am VickKiang. Thanks for your participation in my RfC and sorry for the trouble it caused due to the poor NPOV in the OP, which I would need to improve next time. VickKiang ( talk) 21:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@ VickKiang: Hi there! Not an issue at all; this is something that is not always assumed by newer editors, since ordinary discussions don't have the same requirements. If you have any procedural questions or would like advice, feel free to reach out to me on this talk page. Happy editing! — Mhawk10 ( talk) 03:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, you recently relisted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AdorableRuffian/Userboxes/YesTorture. This is not an appropriate MfD for relisting. Please review the relisting guidelines at WP:RELIST. In particular, it says, "if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus." Looking at the MfD in question, it has been open for nearly a month (4 times the normal length of an MfD), it has had around 10 participants (which is significantly higher than average for an MfD, which routinely get low participation), and it has no distinct lack of policy-based arguments. WP:RELIST also tells us that "relisting should not be a substitute for a 'no consensus' closure." The purpose of relisting is not to achieve a clearer consensus when there is already sufficient discussion to determine a consensus (or a lack of consensus). We don't keep discussions open indefinitely, hoping for a crystal clear consensus to magically appear someday.

While I appreciate you trying to help with non-admin closures of XfDs, I'm a bit concerned by this action, and more concerned that you decided to simply start an edit war with me about it rather than either trying to discuss it with me, or just taking the advice of a long-time WP admin. I'm not suggesting that I'm infallible because I'm an admin, but I can say that I've closed thousands of XfDs and I believe I understand the relisting guidelines pretty well, and I can confidently tell you that this MfD is not eligible for relisting. If your goal is to continue closing more discussions and/or eventually be nominated for adminship, this is something that you need to fully grasp. It's a common error, and honestly a pretty minor one that is unlikely to cause any real damage, but in my opinion it's a clear error.

If you think I'm wrong, I'm happy to hear your opinion about it with an open mind. Otherwise, I would kindly ask you to revert your closure and allow someone else to close this MfD properly. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

With due respect, describing a single revert of an involved editor as an edit war is extremely bizarre. My reading of the discussion is generally that there have not been all that many substantial arguments in the discussion. My initial reading is that many editors are simply asserting that the userbox is inflammatory and divisive or that it is not, which is the only thing that is like a policy-based argument there. But merely asserting something is akin to a WP:VAGUEWAVE. That being said, reading it again, it appears that this patter of assertion was not as prevalent as I initially had read it to be. I'll revise the relist and make a close. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 19:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this into consideration. And just to clarify, I wasn't accusing you of actually edit warring, but when someone reverts you and you simply revert them back, that's setting up the potential for an edit war. If I had just reverted you back again instead of starting this discussion, where would we be then? You didn't do anything wrong, but my personal philosophy is that having brief conversations like this one are often more productive than simply reverting back and forth and trying to explain yourself in an edit summary. Anyway, thanks again. Take care. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I understand the concern and I agree that repeatedly reverting edits would not have been productive; my point was to push back on the statement of concern that you decided to simply start an edit war with me, as I had taken this to imply that you believed that I was engaged in edit warring. I understand now that this was not the case, so I apologize if I was a bit curt in my reply on that front. I'm more than happy to engage in talk page discussions to discuss these sorts of things and to engage constructively with any feedback I receive. I appreciate you bringing the error to my attention and I am happy that this was resolved amicably. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 04:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

So now you know ;) Elinruby ( talk) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So now I know... what exactly? I was the one who opened the split proposal. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 07:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Why it is hard to get anything decided on that talk page. But I came in here to point out that the battalion article doesn’t really cover the movement, and you don’t need to convince them that Deutsche Welle is a reliable source to use it it your own article. My very best wishes made a handy link for you and all you have to do is click it. I would get some text written before you actually hit create. but I am sure you know that Elinruby ( talk) 11:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mhawk10. 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 a 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) 10:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs

Thank you for support in the related RfC for DYK! Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious

You are recipient no. 2720 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The title Compact (magazine) doesn't follow the MOS for DAB pages. What would you think about redirecting it to Compact#Publications? Leschnei ( talk) 17:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not super familiar with the MoS as it pertains to disambiguation pages, so feel free to go for it if doing so would help bring the structure into line with the MoS. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) — Mhawk10 ( talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done and thanks, Leschnei ( talk) 23:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby ( talk) 07:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually don’t doubt you have heard about discretionary sanctions, but was under the impression when I left this one earlier that I had to give one to everyone involved, like you have to notify everyone at NPOV. I have also realized that you have an extensive talk history and I didn’t (and don’t want to) comb it to see if you already have have one for Eastern Europe. If you do then please feel free to remove it. In fact, feel free to remove it even if you haven’t. All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC, relying on the requestor’s representation of it, and this is not the hill I want to die on. We can discuss the RfD further if you like — I think if anything you should have voted merge and will be happy to explain why if you like — but my main point here is that you got the above notice because I was at the time under the impression that everyone had to get one, so sorry about that Elinruby ( talk) 09:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 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 17:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD ( talk) 17:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}

Hello! Your submission of Kyiv Offensive (2022) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- evrik ^{( talk)} 14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Just letting you know that I partially reverted an edit you made with AWB to Ukrainian alphabet. One of the changes was switching from "ie" to "i.e." While this is normally a good fix, in this case I believe it was an error; the "ie" was a transliteration of the Cyrillic letter e.

All the best, Lkb335 ( talk) 21:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Self-trout — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vito Trause you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek ( talk) 22:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics 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 20:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mhawk10. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mimetic Capital, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 08:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Dubious? has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 07:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mhawk10, I've edited the Draft:TurkHackTeam article with reliable sources, can you take a look again? × Elvorix ^talk 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

		The Closer's Barnstar
		For your more than thorough and accurate analysis of a complex and bloated RfC! Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vito Trause you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 2A02:2788:6B4:326:7CD2:1039:CA0D:86F8 -- 2A02:2788:6B4:326:7CD2:1039:CA0D:86F8 ( talk) 15:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are you restoring this dead and dubious thread? Most editors simply ignored it because it relitigated something that had been recently decided. Please restore the archive and let it rest in peace. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• There was a request at RFCLOSE for formal closure. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Also I've already restored the archive to the talk for closure. What do you mean by please restore the archive? — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Mhawk10 -- Responding to your request for clarification above -- I mean please undo your reopening this dead thread and restore the thread in the archive and off the talk page as it was, dead and unclosed. Just because one over-aggressive editor is still trying to push a view that was clearly rejected on talk in multiple threads. Do you really want to go through all the talk archives to see the background that editor is trying to overturn with virtually no support compared to all the previous participation? Not every request for closure needs to be obeyed. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Greetings, Mhawk10. I don't understand what you did exactly with the RfC on Russian bounties wording. (Mind you, this is often due to my inability to understand something obvious. ) You responded with the word "Doing" to the relevant Request for Closure, which I take it to mean "I'm on it". But you closed down the discussion by repeating the word "Doing" and nothing else, not even "closed due to lack of consensus," for example. Could you please explain what was the purpose of your closing? It seems quite unclear as things stand. Thanks in advance. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• ( talk page watcher) Hi The Gnome! Template:doing indicates that Mhawk10 is in the midst of closing the discussion. Placing the template and locking the discussion ensures that other editors won't add comments and closers won't accidentally duplicate efforts. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• This was a "I meant to do that soon after I left {{ doing}} on the page, got distracted, and just got to closing it now." My apologies for the inconvenience. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 17:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers and hawk10. Evidently, I caught the issue during the time between announcement and actual closing. So, we have a closing as no consensus, which, another two cents being dropped by me here, it'd be perhaps better to have it highlighted. À la prochaine, then. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The close a bit more complicated (no consensus on specific wording, but editors generally agree that the contextualization should include that Trump expressed some doubts about the Russian Bounty thingamajig). Making modifications to the existing article in order get to some wording can be achieved through ordinary editing/BRD. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 19:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Mhawk. If it's convenient, it might be helpful if you added the consensus you found in the RfC to the "consensus items" at Talk:Donald Trump as a reminder of the consensus for other editors. An item is usually added after the conclusion of an RfC. I would do it myself, it's just I've been involved in the dispute and don't want to push anyones buttons or misinterpret your analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

   Done — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are meatpuppeting the agenda of a non-consensus POV. Nothing changed in the aborted RfC that you chose to resuscitate and bring to a vacuous "close". From your close, it's not clear how much of the history of this issue you researched in the archives or how much you filtered out non-policy and non-source based !votes in the RfC. It died because most longtime well-informed editors of this article considered it pointless and repetitive. You chose to do the bidding of a single obstinate objection to that fact. The consensus list you've now amended twice is not for vague results like what you've added. Moreover, you violated the Discretionary Sanctions page restriction by reinstating your "consensus" without discussing it on the talk page and waiting 24 hours. Please undo your reinstatement of the consensus list entry I reverted and restore the status quo. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  With due respect, the discretionary sanction of the 24-hour BRD cycle has been placed on the article for Donald Trump, not the page that lists what the consensus are. Is there specific guidance that says that an RfC should only be placed on that page if there are quotes on exact wording? I can't find any such guidance.

  On top of that, no, a single obstinate objection by one editor is in no way reflective of an RfC that had that level of participation. And the close doesn't even find a consensus for Iamreallygoodatcheckers's preferred wording: there was no consensus on particular wording. The consensus in that discussion was that the context should include mention of Trump's doubts, but there was no consensus with respect the verbatim phrase—hence the big "it's complicated" at the top of it. I think my reading of the discussion is both fair and done in a manner that ascertained the consensus based on arguments made in that discussion viewed in the light of policies and guidelines. I am more than happy to expand the close to incorporate in more detail if you would like, but the notion that I am meatpuppeting is patently incorrect and a borderline personal attack. Please strike that accusation. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 17:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are repeatedly following the instructions of an editor who is pushing a POV that died w/o meaningful support, then tried to reinstate exactly the words that got no support. You're free to come up with your own wording if "meatpuppet" offends you, but I find your actions and your violation of Arbcom DS are unacceptable. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Here is tje Discretionary Sanction you violated -- cut and paste from the Trump talk page:

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Donald Trump is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article: 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. These restrictions have been imposed pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorized discretionary sanctions for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial alert. Please edit carefully.

Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

With respect to the discretionary sanction that you are accusing me of violating, I would ask you to reread the first sentence thereof. The scope is clear—the WP:BRD sanction applies to the article Donald Trump. This isn't a broad sanction applied to the topic of Donald Trump, nor a sanction applied to the talk page, nor a sanction applied to all templates that transclude onto the article, nor a sanction that applies to all templates that transclude onto the talk page. If you plan to take this to WP:AE, I cannot stop you, but it will be a waste of both our time.

You still have not taken back your accusation that I am engaging in meatpuppetry. There is a very specific meaning of this term at WP:MEAT: that a user is a like-minded editor to someone (in this case Iamreallygoodatcheckers) whose participation was specifically elicited to sway the outcome of the dispute in the requester's favor. Let me be clear—I have ascertained consensus on this independently by faithfully reading the discussion and summarizing it. Nobody asked me personally to close that discussion; like I do in many cases, I responded to a request on WP:RFCLOSE. If you believe that my close was erroneous, feel free to make a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN, but I (once again) think that this would be an incredible waste of time for everybody involved given that the close accurately reflects the discussion.

After I closed the RfC, the user reasonably reached out and asked me to list it on the page for current consensuses. If you want me to be frank, the reason I did not put it there shortly after I made the close was an oversight on my end—it should have been placed on that page regardless. If you don't think that the one-sentence summary of the close that I placed on the "current consensus" page is faithful to the closing summary of the RfC, I'm more than amenable to tweaking it, but it's a bit hard to do that when I'm not getting any constructive feedback on what you find to be the specific error in that summary. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 21:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• @ SPECIFICO: it's beyond ridicules to accuse Mhawk10 of meatpuppetting with me. You have no reason or evidence to believe that, and I can assure you it did not happen. He just saw my request for closure I added like weeks ago and did the work to close the RfC. This kind of behavior must stop SPECIFICO. You can not go around accusing editors of misconduct like this. The only person you are hurting by doing this is yourself. If you continue to do this I will open a WP:ANI about your conduct. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 02:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weighing in on "most editors appear to be in agreement". Seven editors voiced an opinion on the proposed sentence. Four supported it, three didn't, an eighth editor wanted the sentence removed entirely, and a ninth asked whether the matter hadn't been settled in the original RfC. Is four out of seven or possibly eight or nine "most"? (I'm not even sure whether "Support, it's a relatively minor issue and I don't think that more context is needed in this article" is pro or con.) GoodAtCheckers: the original RfC's closure said to keep the sentence but add context. The important part is the not discussing, the context is the why not. Your sentence turns that around. And what's the context? He/his adminstration gave at least two reasons: doubts about the intelligence, not briefed on the intelligence. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Again, there was no consensus with respect to the proposed sentence. The proposed alternatives Multiple proposals were put forward for specific wording, though none achieved a rough affirmative consensus. However, most editors appear to be in agreement that Trump's doubts regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity. Implementation of this general agreement can be implemented through editing along the lines of the bold-revert-discussion cycle, keeping in mind that this discussion did not achieve a consensus on a specific way to characterize these doubts (bold added). The sentence proposed by Iamreallygoodatcheckers, as well as the two proposals (both by you and by Valjean) include something regarding the doubts expressed by Trump. The point of the last sentence in the quoted portion above is to say that discussion is needed about how to characterize these doubts when the article is contextualizing the Russian bounty shebang. I don't think the text of the close endorses the view that there's some consensus that the doubts were the only relevant context needed; if it does, that was not my intent when writing it and I would be happy to make edits to make that more explicit. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 22:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It would sure be nice if someone added a hatnote link to the issue at hand right at the top of this thread. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How much clearer can it be said to you. Mhawk10? Your close endorsed and codified Checkers' apparent view that Trump had genuine doubts, whereas the consensus of editors and the sourced references cited by SpaceX among others, indicate that such a conclusion is unverified and not NPOV. You need to take stock of all the feedback and do the right thing instead of following the wishes of the single editor who's been pushing this text over and over and over and over. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glen Rock (boulder) 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 Mujinga -- Mujinga ( talk) 16:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Glen Rock (boulder) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Glen Rock (boulder) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga ( talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite right. I think (fear) the big decision at the ANI thread is going to be TBAN vs block. (I have sworn to not opine at ArbCom, but I need an outlet.) I done my bit, now it's up to the Community. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Glen Rock (boulder) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Glen Rock (boulder) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga ( talk) 13:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
3,763		Pound sterling ( talk)	Add sources
1,635		Marsha Blackburn ( talk)	Add sources
566		Troma Entertainment ( talk)	Add sources
43		Windows NT booting process ( talk)	Add sources
4,063		Sinking of the Moskva ( talk)	Add sources
50		Cuzcatlan ( talk)	Add sources
377		Evolutionary origin of religions ( talk)	Cleanup
151		Bitter Harvest (2017 film) ( talk)	Cleanup
192		Gender essentialism ( talk)	Cleanup
38		Speculation about Donald Trump's Cabinet ( talk)	Expand
439		U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking ( talk)	Expand
156		Glossary of archaeology ( talk)	Expand
3,525		Telugu language ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
197		Denial of the Holodomor ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
588		Dominant-party system ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
305		College and university rankings in the United States ( talk)	Merge
310		Pysanka ( talk)	Merge
3,373		Taxonomy (biology) ( talk)	Merge
1,868		Circassians ( talk)	Wikify
70		Great Seal of France ( talk)	Wikify
1,703		NASCAR ( talk)	Wikify
4		Stepan Sosnovy ( talk)	Orphan
5		Philadelphia Game Lab ( talk)	Orphan
6		N.K.B.M.G Postgraduate College ( talk)	Orphan
4,194		May 2022 lunar eclipse ( talk)	Stub
15		United States – Russia mutual detargeting ( talk)	Stub
7		David Edwin Harrell ( talk)	Stub
19		Telephone numbers in Suriname ( talk)	Stub
17		Debt limit ( talk)	Stub
6		Glen Rock–Main Line station ( talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Social Democratic Progress Party 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 15:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to say I would personally agree with your edit to the WSJ lead but my read of NOCON says we have to keep the text. There was a 2019 RfC that closed with consensus to include. Thus, my read is the default state is keep it and we need a consensus tio remove. I don't like it but I do want to make a good faith effort to respect the process. That said, the concern that the current text fails wp:V should be addressed. Springee ( talk) 23:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@ Springee: you might be right. There’s some intersection with WP:ONUS that the text of the RfC close might cut into, but if it isn’t uncontroversial then it should be handled in the talk rather than me reverting. I’m on mobile right now so feel free to revert and open a discussion on the talk. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 23:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I left a reply on ticket:2022052210002263. TL;DR, no. Cabayi ( talk) 08:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. ( t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am very impressed with the diligence you put into this careful reply, perhaps the best example of AfD discussion I've seen so far:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Bagrationi_(chess)&diff=1090063428&oldid=1090048655&diffmode=source CT55555 ( talk) 14:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Italian Social Movement 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 22:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)