Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I just shifted data to make it look more normal like other such profiles.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Kyiv (2022) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kyiv (2022) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Kyiv (2022) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kyiv (2022) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Precious

principled diplomacy

Thank you for quality articles such as Repatriation tax avoidance, Uyghur Tribunal, Vito Trause and Glen Rock (boulder), for closing discussions with diplomacy, for confidence in editors and for defending "the core value of Wikipedia to not censor a topic area simply because it is sensitive"- you are an awesome Wikipedian!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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

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)[reply]