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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Regarding your question, could you clarify which involvement disputes you are referring to in the Manning naming dispute and Climate change cases? I'm familiar with the Athaenara one and am prepared to answer that one, but some additional information on the others – which arbitrators were requested to recuse, a link to the request, and what the decision was – would be appreciated. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Thank you for your clarifying question. I'm less interested in the question of when an Arbitrator should recuse (that's an interesting one, but not the purpose of my question), and more interested in your philosophy as to how the Arbitration Committee should deal with claims that administrators are involved in their use of tools.

With respect to Climate change, there are a number of possible things to consider regarding proposed principles, FoFs, and remedies touched upon involvement. These include (but might not exhaustively be):

• The extent to which principles 15-17 are justified;
• The extent to which FoFs 4, 12.2-3, and 13.1 are warranted;
• The extent to which Proposed FoF 13.0 was not warranted;
• The extent to which the rejection of both proposed remedy 9.2 is justified;
• The extent to which Remedy 10.1 was superior or inferior to proposed remedy 10;

With respect to the Manning naming dispute, the main things with respect to administrator involvement are:

• The wisdom of Principle 13;
• The justification of FoF 23;
• The extent to which the rejection of proposed remedy 14 and acceptance of remedies 14.1-2 was warranted.

Thank you.

— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Please let me know if you have any other questions. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Can you see if the article has improved enough to go back to the mainspace ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Inishglora) Thanks! Happy Thanksgiving. MurrayGreshler ( talk) 21:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@ MurrayGreshler: Hi! If you'd like to have somebody review the page, feel free to click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button and a reviewer will take a look. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

November songs

... for a constructive close of the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that being "hired" necessitates compensation. Taibbi and Musk had an agreement, as Taibbi indicated. soibangla ( talk) 14:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

When I hire someone, I'm offering them a form of employment in exchange for compensation. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox uncivil conflict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno ( talk) 02:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 03:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder WikiHelper0830 ( talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

[ User talk:Obiwana#December 2022] - I think you meant from another page, love to know what that was as I think there's a problem with the Pakistant war crimes article, ie I need to check if the sources actually say war crimes.

Doug Weller talk 09:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: Yep, that should have been flipped (copied X into Pakistan war crimes). The two articles copied from were Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and 2022 Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed that. I've taken it to AfD on the basis that not only do all the sources, if any, refer to war crimes, but the way it is now you can't verify the references because the cut and paste didn't carry the citations over. There's a dispute at RSN over the war crimes issue that I raised in regard to another article so if that is resolved it might be relevant to the AfD. But I don't see any easy way to solve the problems of being able to verify the sources. I think there is also a competence issue with the editor who was on my watchlist before this article was created. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about pulling the trigger on a TNT-style AFD nom on that article. My only hesitation is that (broadly speaking), there is a LOT of coverage of this topic in the context of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide (for example, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and some more sporadic coverage about war crimes after that in the context of more recent conflicts ( [6]). Copying from the first of the two articles listed above makes sense in creating this sort of thing. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

My AfD doesn’t question notability. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm stating that the reason I didn't pull the trigger on the AfD was because the topic is so notable; I generally prefer stubbifying or draftifying notable articles that have massive content issues to deleting them, unless there is truly nothing useful in it that can be kept. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I just couldn’t figure out how to do that because of the mess it is. If you can could withdraw the AfD. Although I think sources need to say war crimes, unless the RSN debate concludes not. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mess because the source page uses {{ sfn}}, so visual editor doesn't actually copy the references over properly (it copied over the sfn template but not the underlying sources). This could be avoided when people use the standard CS1 or CS2 template combined with {{ rp}} to give page numbers, but it's a stylistic choice when writing an article.

I can take a look and see if I can fix it. While I haven't looked into it, the fact that the work of Bina D'Costa's book Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia is being cited in the source article and explicitly referred to in the copied text makes me think it likely that the term "war crimes" is actually used by sources to describe the actions of the Pakistani military during the genocide in Bangladesh. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your last sentence. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that you added a notice recently with this edit]. Are you using an existing template? I've often found the need to make the same point (as you can see I did to the same editor on what I think is a different edit) but I wrote my own response. If there is a standard template please share details. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Sphilbrick: the template is {{ uw-copying}}. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. At the looking at it I might use my own because I like linking to the specific edit of the editor but I'm happy to see that there is a standard template. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem. It might be worth modifying the template to allow for including a link, but I get where you're coming from. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 06:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany, 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) 01:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I make one revert of an edit of yours and in less than an hour I've got four notifications from you across two wikis, including you following me to a page you've never edited before to revert me? This could easily be perceived as hounding. –– FormalDude (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the English Wikipedia, I noticed that there was a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and I have offered my opinion on the talk page of the article. That is nowhere near hounding.

With respect to Commons, please stop uploading copyright violations. You received three notifications on Commons related to your copyright violations: one with respect to a deletion request with respect to a whole category of license plate deletions (which I've been going through in recent days), another for something we both agree is a copyright violation, and another asking you to stop committing copyright violations. I understand the occasional mistake on some weird FOP or TOO thingy, but you appear to have uploaded 9 copyvios to Commons since last September, which is frankly a lot for 185 files uploaded. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 version 21H1. This notification is being sent to all of the remaining participants from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 (original release). Modernponderer ( talk) 02:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Red-tailed hawk!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Free content from Fandom indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Liz: Thank you for the notification. As a bit of an oddity, there doesn't appear to be a button in the transcluded CSD template to click that's labeled "contest this speedy deletion". I know that this is an auto-generated message via Twinkle, and I'm not exactly sure how to go about requesting changes to default Twinkle messages, but any help pointing me in the right direction would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page notice, Red-tailed hawk, I don't check my pings. Almost 50% of my edits are notices to User Talk pages, mostly to brand new editors so I get a lot of pings when they have questions and I can't keep up with them.

Empty categories aren't really contested. There are just a few exceptions to CSD C1 that allows them to not be deleted, if they are category redirects, disambiguation categories, being discussed at CFD or are part of a WikiProject category system. The typical solution that editors do if they want to keep a category is to make sure it is not empty! All it takes to have the empty category untagged is, at some point in the 7 day holding period, for it not to be empty any longer. This happens all of the time, especially when editors are fighting over how to categorize an article subject. A category that just holds one article goes empty, gets filled, goes empty again, etc. That's why there is a week-long holding period so "speedy deletion" isn't exactly speedy with CSD C1.

There is one other alternative that we don't like to promote and that is to put an empty category tag on the page ({{emptycat}}) but this tag can be abused and used inappropriately to "save" an otherwise unused category so it's better if the category just doesn't remain empty.

One other thing, if the category is no longer empty, please do not remove the CSD tag yourself, there are editors who scan Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and remove categories that are no longer empty and it is not appropriate for a page creator to remove a speedy deletion tag. I hope this information helps explain CSD C1 better. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Liz: Not a problem! The category is auto-populated by {{ Free-content attribution}} when Fandom is specified as the source, so I'm fairly sure it will be populated at some point in the future. That benig said, it can always be re-created in the future. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 23:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 ( talk) 01:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton ( talk) 18:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort out some potential copyright issues. It appears you are involved as well as @ DanSD19:.

I see that you are VTRS agent. Thanks in advance for all the work you do there; I know from experience that the ratio of thanks to work is quite small. I used to be very active in VTRS mostly when it was OTRS, but not for some time. I no longer have access to the system.

Did you process the ticket related to File:In brief - The State of Food and Agriculture 2022.pdf

I'd like to make sure everything has been handled properly.

There was a report in copy patrol involving Automation and [This report https://www.fao.org/3/cb9479en/cb9479en.pdf]. The report clearly states the license:

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO;

Which of course is not acceptable for Wikipedia.

And I pointed this out the editor let me know about the ticket related to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:In_brief_-_The_State_of_Food_and_Agriculture_2022.pdf

Initially, I thought it was the same document, but I now see there is the main report and an "in brief" summary. The latter purports to have the correct license. It may well be that the text identified by copy patrol associated with the main report is also in the in brief report; I haven't checked that.

It was my understanding that when text used in an article, associated with a document for which there is a VTRS ticket, there needed to be a note in the article talk file acknowledging this. I know I've processed hundreds of such situations but I honestly don't recall whether it was considered courteous or an absolute requirement. Do you know?

It seems likely that this situation will reoccur if there is text in a properly licensed FAO document which matches text in an unacceptably licensed FAO document. While it might not be a rule, I think we would avoid some confusion if we asked the editor to make reference to a VT RS ticket in and edit summary.

Separately, I have some concerns about an FAO employee including FAO text in articles without, at least, acknowledging the COI on the user page. Isn't that required? And is that enough? I used to be active in COI but not recently; I'm surprised that the editor is permitted to directly the edits rather than asking someone else to make the edits. Have our internal processes changed?

Finally, it's my impression that the United Nations is a bureaucratic organization so it surprised me that permission for use of the document could be processed so quickly. Am I missing something? S Philbrick (Talk) 16:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Sphilbrick: Yes, I did process that document. While the In Brief document itself is marked as CC-BY-SA-NC in its text, we have received additional permission from the copyright holder to also license the content under CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO (the copyright holder has agreed to dual license the content for that document under CC-BY-SA-NC and CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO, but we only need to care about the CC-BY-SA part in terms of use on Wikipedia). The CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO license is compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported, as the license text allows licensees to re-share derivative works under either the unported Creative Commons license or a ported Creative Commons license (either this or a later license version) containing the same License Elements, the "license elements" being attribution and sharealike.

That CC-BY-SA-3.0 IGO license appears to apply only to the In Brief versions, and the text contained therein. I am not able to find permission for the full version, so any text copied from the full version that is not in the In Brief should not be presumed freely licensed on the basis of Ticket:2022020110007811. On the flipside, all the text in the In Brief version is freely licensed, even if that text is also in the full version. I can confirm that it also surprised me that permission for use of the document could be processed so quickly in an giant intergovernmental bureaucracy like the UN, but there is no doubt in my mind that a CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO license was intentionally and validly issued by the copyright holder of the In Brief work.

Regarding It was my understanding that when text used in an article, associated with a document for which there is a VTRS ticket, there needed to be a note in the article talk file acknowledging this, yes, for reasons of attribution we need to note that we are copying from a particular source. When re-using content from a CC-BY-SA work, attribution is required under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. This can be done using {{ free-content attribution}} alongside the first reference for CC-BY-SA works (one could also legally satisfy the CC attribution requirements in an edit summary alone, but it's not a best practice as far as plagiarism is concerned). {{ Ticket confirmation}} should also be added to the article's talk page by VRT agents when text is donated and the only evidence that the text was donated is in VRT, but that would require the VRT agents to know that the text released in a particular ticket is to be used in a particular article at the time that the agent is processing a particular ticket.

I hope this helps. Are there any other questions or concerns that you have?

— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth on COI, WP:COI does not strictly prohibit editors from making COI edits per se (though it does strongly discourage it). The problem that usually results is that COI editors might be substantially more likely to violate WP:NPOV. I have no idea if that the editor was in any way involved with creating those specific FAO documents, but citing oneself is ok when done reasonably. WP:COICAMPAIGN notes that government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics. If we extend that guidance to the U.N. (which I think is more than reasonable), then they should avoid editing about the U.N., its branches, and controversial political topics within the U.N.'s scope (i.e. no more creating articles like Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). But editing about the subject of agriculture seems fine, especially if they happen to have a lot of knowledge in that general area, so long as they do not make articles unbalanced towards the views of the FAO or unduly emphasize the importance of the FAO's work. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@ Red-tailed hawk: , @ Sphilbrick Hello, thank you for guiding me through potential issues related to the additions I made.

As you can see from my [user page User:DanSD19] a transparency statement is included. I have been adding content taken from FAO resources following this project: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_text and always tried to comply to neutrality and proper copyright and attribution.

What happened here is that I got confused with references. However, I made sure to rephrase content taken from the SOFA 2022 [main report https://www.fao.org/3/cb9479en/cb9479en.pdf] and take content as is from the [inbrief https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:In_brief_-_The_State_of_Food_and_Agriculture_2022.pdf] to comply to the two different licenses.

The change of licence provided by the VTR team for the in brief is here https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2022020110007811

As far as the statement is concerned, I left a source statement at the bottom of the pages I updated making sure it is clear that the content has been taken from a free-licensed source.

Here's a recap of the pages I added content to:

Agricultural machinery

Automation

Mechanised agriculture

Precision agriculture

I thank you for the check and for the help and I am available to provide further information. ~~~~ DanSD19 ( talk) 10:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you for your contributions and your understanding S Philbrick (Talk) 13:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

December songs

Merry Christmas

We sang Charpentier's delightful Messe de minuit pour Noël today, which was on DYK yesterday, - a first for me, pictured, - thank you for the good wishes, and enjoy the season! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you as well, Gerda! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Red-tailed hawk: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to reach out to you regarding an issue with the Kim Seon-ho article. There has been an issue brought up here: [7] Two editors have been in a dispute with the whole public image section. I would like your help with reaching a consensus, as it's been an edit war regarding the problem. I would like for it to be resolved. Btspurplegalaxy  💬  🖊️ 04:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just returning from holiday wikibreak; let me take a look. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@ Btspurplegalaxy: I'm reading through. Is the discussion already resolved? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you so much. Drmies ( talk) 22:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in Articles for Creation's January 2023 Backlog Drive! —  Ingenuity ( talk •  contribs) 00:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

As you recently participated in this AfD under review, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 15. LibStar ( talk) 05:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, as the principal editor for the Uyghur Tribunal page, I was wondering if you take a cursory look through it to check if it's all good? The article seemed really obsolete to me, so I did what I could.

Thanks! VF01 ( talk) 03:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@ VF01: Thank you for the heads-up! That's an article that needed to be updated, for sure; I had written the majority of it before it ended, and I haven't had the energy to dive back into those sources recently. It definitely is in need of an update. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

member Lauriswift911 deleted all uploads to the site, please return Alasha khan ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking; would you mind rephrasing your request? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

there is a page, "List of wars involving Kazakhstan", and so, almost all of my additions were removed there, for example, the Golden Horde, the Turkic Khaganate Alasha khan ( talk) 01:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah. If you look at the page's revision history, you will be able to see the edits that others have made. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

you can return all the early additions Alasha khan ( talk) 04:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at Wikipedia:Introduction), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at Wikipedia:NPOV.

However, since article content is not controlled by a central authority, I have no special powers to re-instate the edits. In light of this, you have a few options:

1. If you think there has been a simple misunderstanding, you might begin a discussion on the article's talk page to try to engage other editors and get a sense of what is happening with this article. You can do this by clicking on the "Talk" tab located along the top of the article and then clicking on the "New Section" tab on the following page. Be sure to give your new section a title (like, "Concerns over article content", etc.) and once you write down your concerns you should sign the entry with four tildes ~~~~ before clicking on Save. Then you should check back occasionally to see if anyone has responded. This may be the simplest way to handle your issue.
2. If you think your concern is not one of misunderstanding but of an editing dispute, you may end up needing to seek formal dispute resolution. This allows other editors to take a fresh look at what is going on and to consider the dispute from a neutral standpoint. You can access more information about Wikipedia's dispute resolution process here: Wikipedia:DR. Most dispute resolution requires you to have already engaged in discussion on the article talk page first, so you will probably NOT want to start here, but you may decide to go here if the talk page turn out to be unproductive for you.
3. You also have the option to change the content of the article as you see fit. However, I must warn you that repeatedly reverting the edits of others or adding/ removing significant content without discussion may constitute disruptive editing and may cause your account to become blocked (see: WP:3RR). Please do not consider this your first option—begin with the talk page.

If you have other questions about resolving content disputes, please let me know. Understand, however, that I have no special authority to change or enforce article content on your behalf: content disputes are ONLY resolved through talk pages and dispute resolution.

— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 10:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't want to mention it there, so as not to dissuade an editor, but 600 words and 6 periods is pretty great. Last 300+ words with no periods at all. That's a power move, right there. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's not great, and if that were inserted into an article it would be instantly be reverted, but it looks like the editors was trying to add it to the talk page of a draft. It doesn't look like copy-paste vandalism, so it's technically a false positive for that filter, but I do share your concern that the quality of the contribution is poor. It's the editor's first attempt to make a draft, and I can't quite tell if the article subject is notable (pro wrestling is not exactly my area of expertise sourcing-wise), but the draft will definitely need a second person to copy-edit it/format it/add citations to it if there is any hope of that becoming an article. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 13:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Usually in cases like this, the editor quickly abandons the draft and it's swept away by G13 six months later. I think that's pretty much ideal; nobody actually has to deal with the junk (because G13 deletions are almost entirely automated) and the person doesn't leave with a bad impression of Wikipedia editors because some understandably annoyed person bit them. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For boldly and carefully performing WP:TPO when it was called for. Kiz o r 02:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 13:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Self-image is a far more fitting article for File:Self-reflection.png. Very much appreciated. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 13:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your good work. Fad Ariff ( talk) 13:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 13:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Red-tailed hawk, following the discussion at WP:EFN, EFH access has been added for you. Please be sure you have reviewed Wikipedia:Edit filter helper in its entirety. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Red-tailed hawk; I hope this message finds you well. I have recently accepted an Articles for Creation submission for The Conversations and have moved it from the draft to the main namespace. Before doing so, I made some enhancements to the page by adding book reviews from two reputable academic journals. If you have any reservations about this move, please do not hesitate to reach out to me, and I would be happy to discuss it with you and move the page back to the "draft" if necessary. RPSkokie ( talk) 15:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

My biggest reservation at this point is that the majority of the page's content is sourced to non-independent sources or blogs. This is fine notability-wise due to the two academic reviews. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd already decided to not contribute to that discussion any more, because it's taking too much time, it isn't worth it & I've said all I have to say. Therefore your report is unnecessary & will only waste the time of the contributors. I haven't edited any articles about Walters or Amanpour; I hadn't even taken an interest in either until the long discussions about Walters began. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 17:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, @ Jim Michael 2: it should not have taken me posting at WP:AE for you to acknowledge that I've said all I have to say. In light of the broader behavioral problem here that extends back to edit warring at the New Year, I disagree that my report is unnecessary & will only waste the time of the contributors—a logged warning seems warranted absent a general promise to not bludgeon discussions about recently deceased people going forward (and may be warranted for record-keeping even if such a promise is made). — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat it on there or anywhere else. I'm not the only editor - or even the only regular editor - who says Walters isn't internationally notable enough for main year articles. There's no point considering blocking me from a discussion which I'd already decided to no longer contribute to. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 18:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If you read my request closely, you will not find anywhere in it a request that you be blocked. That being said, I would strongly prefer if our conversation here could be continued at WP:AE#Jim Michael 2 rather than on my user talk page, so as not to fork the discussion on the merits of the AE request across multiple pages. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 18:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Not by you, but one of the other contributors appears to want be to be temporarily blocked from the page in question, which I disagree with. The format of that report doesn't allow for replying to other commenters, since each person's comments are in a separate section. Jim Michael 2 ( talk) 18:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

January songs

happy new year

Thank you for DYK reviewing! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

On vacation - see songs. Today's featured article is Witold Lutosławski. Do you see what I see? A classical composer with an infobox, and no complaints. Compare Debussy. I would like a way to avoid the waste of time (for everyone involved) arguing if we may show (additionally, taking nothing away) five lines: when and where a person was born and died, and a list of their works. The claim that all these are in the lead is plain wrong, but has been presented again and again in such discussions, for the more than ten years I'm watching. Do you see a way out? Compare Tchaikovsky also. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the page history, a user boldly added a Wikidata infobox, which you quickly replaced with a local infobox. Being bold is one way to approach editing on Wikipedia, though when bold edits are not objected to, the "R" and "D" considerations of WP:BRD don't really pose any issues. The current community consensus on whether or not to have an infobox is that it depends on the article; there isn't a presumption towards or away from having an infobox.

If your goal is to avoid or reduce the number of page-level conflicts, there could be some objective criteria created that create a mandate or rebuttable presumption that certain sorts of articles should/shouldn't have an infobox, though that would require a community-level RfC—moving away from a case-by-case model would require the community would need to have a clearer consensus one way or the other than has yet been ascertained in a formal discussion. Absent a more decisive community consensus one way or the other, talk page discussions are and will continue to be the only way to resolve questions of whether or not to have an infobox for a particular article. And, even if a more decisive community consensus for or against infoboxes in a particular scope is obtained, WP:IAR will always be something that can be invoked on individual articles' talk pages.

This is a(n apparently) perennial issue, and there are no easy ways out of resolving individual article-level disputes on talk pages in the absence of a more definite community consensus,. That being said, I don't know if properly formulating a community-wide RfC to attempt to establish more objective guidelines and/or formally prefer the addition/removal of infoboxes would even be easier than the current system of hashing it out article-by-article. Someone with more knowledge of the underlying history of the infobox dispute is probably better equipped than me to answer that broader question; the extent of my knowledge of the underlying dispute is more or less limited to the arguments I've seen while closing a small number of discussions related to whether or not an infobox is acceptable in a particular article.

— Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 11:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am well equipped ;) - I was a party in the 2013 arbcom case, and admonished and restricted (because I wanted infoboxes for operas, DYK?). In 2018, a wise woman said this, and now we just had discussions for 5 articles in a few weeks. The key question is: does the community decide, or do the principal editors? For all these discussions but Debussy, the closer saw a consensus to have a short, well curated infobox ( James Joyce today). I see a trend. Case-by-case means: the same people meet again and again, the same personal prejudices are repeated again and again, and it's not only a waste of time, but also increases tensions. If I knew a way out I wouldn't ask you and the arb candidates. - My personal approach: let infoboxes be edited like other matters, bold edit, and discussions only if reverted. To run an an RfC before making a simple edit, of a kind accepted in thousands of articles, seems not a good idea. Watch Jenny Lind (also today). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Jenny Lind has grown to RfC in a day. This isn't even a classical composer. I found an interesting link today: Project Opera's style guide (2019). But some repeat the same arguments in 2023 still. I grinned when I read the always-the-same bullet list, reduced from 10 to 7, and not claiming that the infobox repeats what's in the lead. Firstly, that is intentionally so per design, secondly, it is not true. For Lind, there's no place of birth and death in the lead. Debussy has a place of death, Paris, but in the last sentence of the lead, - too late for someone who wants just that information. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Back from on vacation. - Melitta Muszely died, RIP - Compare Jenny Lind, and I thought we had left these "discussions" behind in 2019. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think my edit-summary is self explanatory but let me know if you disagree and I can suggest some scholarship to look at. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ TrangaBellam: Fair point w.r.t. perspective, though I do think that the presence of theological differences between teachings of Ahmadiyya and the teachings common to most forms Sunni and Shia Islam is worth describing. Obviously the Twelver Shia sects do believe in a Mahdi having already come, but I do think that the identification of Ahmad as all of a prophet, messiah, and Mahdi are different than basically all other forms of Islam. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement doesn't posit him quite that way, but I think it's fine as I've revised it. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 14:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries - agreed.

The current version goes,

Ahmadiyya teachings differ significantly from most Sunni and Shia Muslim groups; its teaching that 19th-century Punjabi author and religious leader Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was both the Messiah and the Mahdi is rejected by most other Muslims who consider Muhammad to be God's final prophet. Pakistan's constitution defines the nation's state religion as Islam; an ammendment in 1974 promulgated that people who practice Ahmadiyya are to be considered non-Muslims. Subsequent legislation, such as Ordinance XX, have banned Ahmadi Muslims from publicly describing themselves as Muslim and even restricted the practice of core tenets of their faith. Ali Usman Quasmi, in his magisterial work on the community, notes that they are subject to "religious and social discrimination on a daily basis."

Feel free to incorporate copy-edits. TrangaBellam ( talk) 14:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be striking the sentence sourced to Quasmi; I don't doubt it's true, but I would much prefer to describe the means by which they are legally oppressed rather than simply quoting someone who says Ahmadi Muslims are discriminated against. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 14:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ TrangaBellam: What exactly am I missing here? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 19:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Replying in a while. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ TrangaBellam: Any update? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 19:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine enough. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. Hoping you can address a question I had at Template:Did you know nominations/Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, Notre Dame, so we can promote the DYK hook for 11 February as requested. Cielquiparle ( talk) 18:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. See the DYK template. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

any chance you could make the background transparent? Would be appreciated :) theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi leek! I'll take a look. I'm not exactly sure how to make it transparent in MS Paint, and I don't have anything more sophisticated than that on my PC. Any pointers would be helpful. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 22:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your excellent collaboration while creating the Igor Mangushev article. CT55555( talk) 01:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Red-tailed hawk, considering that a lot of editors has been harassed and threatened on reddit by user:PlanespotterA320, should WMF trust and safety noticed about this situations? -- Lemonaka ( talk) 03:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Red-tailed hawk, I noticed your name as an author at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/News and notes where I found some posts about Wikimedia affiliates. Would it be okay do include a line about this research study in the upcoming issue? Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, though I'm not involved on the editorial side, and I'm not sure if this would go best in News&Notes, Research Report, or something else. @ JPxG and Bri: What are your thoughts on this request above? — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 07:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at The Signpost this month. Your barnstar is in the mail (when we publish, per tradition). ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Bri! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 19:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For your contributions to the first issue of February 2023, thank you on behalf of the rest of the Signpost team! ☆ Bri ( talk) 07:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Amazing work on the grotto page! Eccekevin ( talk) 00:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, Notre Dame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girth.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for responding to my edit request on the AARP article in mid-January and for adding the request to the editor's queue. You noted back in January you didn't have immediate time to review the request, which I understand. Wanted to see if you might have time to review it sometime soon since it's been a month and the request is still in the editor queue. If not, that's ok. Know you are busy. But thought I'd check. Thanks in advance for your help. Justin Goldsborough ( talk) 17:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Z1720 ( talk) 00:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well said. But I think you didn't want to link to that particular page :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

		The Human Rights Barnstar
		For creating the Uyghur genocide article. It was a huge gap for this not to exist, an important gap, and I appreciate you adding this to the encyclopedia CT55555( talk) 19:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I responded to your post on infoboxes at Talk:Killing of Brianna Ghey. Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Driving in Madagascar 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 00:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In the sentence ;

"But maybe you can answer Red-tailed hawk, who seems to have taken an article interest in the question, because the Polish article ours links to is "collaboration" and doesn't mention Blue police."

I was answering GizzyCatBella, who speaks Polish, because you asked about the Polish version, suggesting that there might be a translation error. I agree that we can't use that poster as a source. My point was that there is no Polish version of this article; the Polish article it links to is very different and does not discuss the Blue Police. I was suggesting that GCB might know where the text came from. I'll make sure to put a name on stuff in future to avoid this; feel free to ignore my TL;DR reply. I was written when I wasn't sure what the point of confusion was. Regards Elinruby ( talk) 05:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I misread that sentence. Thank you for offering the explanation here; this has cleared things up for me. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 05:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

no worries, lack of addressee and mid-thread topic change was part of it <g> note to self on my end Elinruby ( talk) 09:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The article Driving in Madagascar 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:Driving in Madagascar and Talk:Driving in Madagascar/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 18:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The article Driving in Madagascar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Driving in Madagascar for comments about the article, and Talk:Driving in Madagascar/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 00:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. Thank you for your work on Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway. User:Tamzin, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Easily the best article I have ever read about a toll highway in Madagascar.

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

-- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 04:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work in writing the best article I've ever read about a toll highway in Madagascar. Vermont ( 🐿️— 🏳️‍🌈) 05:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you fix it for me please. I'm busy at the moment and I've made enough mistakes already today. -- Colin° ^Talk 14:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Will do. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 14:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 15:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,163 views (673.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Jesus as Christ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 25 § Jesus as Christ until a consensus is reached. Veverve ( talk) 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

February songs

my daily stories

yesterday's cantata, 300 years later -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the song, Gerda! — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

more music today: the regional festival - DYK of 13 years ago ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's wonderful, Gerda. I've been writing about an album recently, and I think you may enjoy a listen if you can. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the music, I will listen - today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)