Hi Mikehawk10! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notre Dame Club Coordination Council 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/Notre Dame Club Coordination Council 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the 1776 Commission article (if a RS says X but you personally disagree with the RS, don't weaken the language sourced to the RS), as well as making sure the cited sources are WP:RS rather than op-eds or non-RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, the issue with the RS in this particular case is that one can reasonably construe an appearance of an editorial conflict of interest within the New York Times, as its magazine published the 1619 project, to which the 1776 Commission was formed as a reaction. I would try to move to other sources if possible, and as users had pointed out on the talk page, the NY Times is imprecise with its language in the article. Perhaps the AHA statement would be a better (and certainly more authoritative) source for the more narrow of the two claims the article makes.

As for the list of members, I am unsure why some of the members have fuller descriptions than others. If we are to include a brief list of (potentially) relevant affiliations for some, why not do it for all of them? Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are new here. Sometimes Wikipedia editing can de daunting, but reach out for anything. If you have time, Draft:South Dining Hall this definitely could ue help. Eccekevin (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2021 (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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 16:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just placed a {{prod}} on Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to Islamist militancy.

The last time I looked articles aren't eligible for {{prod}} if they have previously been the target of a WP:CSD of AFD. Please see Talk:Uyghur_guest_houses_suspected_of_ties_to_Islamist_militancy#hangon.

So, when you placed the tag, were you merely doing so because it had been in place for a long time? Or did you give the article and its references a thorough read? Did you comply with your obligations under WP:BEFORE, and do a web search on the topic, and independently conclude the article's underlying topic did not measure up to our current inclusion standards? Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. I checked. In fact prod can't be used on article that have undergone an AFD, or if they have been restored following a contested speedy deletion. I was wrong that speedy tag that was declined precluded placing a prod. My apologies.

I'd still like to know whether you actually gave the article a meaningful review, and concluded its underlying topic didn't meet our inclusion criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old joke playing on the double entendre that occurs in many dialects of English between "Mike Hawk" and "my cock". May I politely ask whether your username is a reference to that? If so, I worry that it may run afoul of our policy on disruptive usernames. If it's unintentional, you might still want to be aware that people may make that association, and that the username might thus prove disruptive even if that's not your intention. If you're interested in changing your username, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

All the best. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I chose this name because there was a hawk that nested in my yard when I was younger that my parents named “Mike”. It had not occurred to me until now that my parents were possible making a joke in the naming.

That being said, I’ve had the username for over a year and this is the first I am hearing of it. As a result, I don’t think the name makes “harmonious editing difficult or impossible”, as is the relevant criterion stated in the guideline. For that reason, I don’t plan to change the name. Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 18:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 The Telegraph. 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) 06:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike! I've noticed you've recently nominated several student newspapers for deletion. A few of these may end up being deleted, but for several others, editors have identified a bunch of sources that make them highly likely to be kept. I'd advise you to withdraw these nominations. Additionally, please note the advice at WP:BEFORE—articles should not be AfDed just because existing sources have not yet been added to them. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb! I admittedly don't have access to newspapers.com, so I was unable to find any of these sources prior to nominating them for deletion. I'm in agreement that I should withdraw the AFD for the pages where a bunch of sources have been found from that site. How do I close the AFDs for the ones I choose to do?

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uyghur genocide 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 Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Uyghur genocide you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Uyghur genocide for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikehawk10, I noticed that there is a WP:NPOV problem regarding a sentence, as you mentioned on the article’s talk page. Do you think this would be a good sentence to solve the WP:NPOV problem (which I just added to the article): Biden also criticized the GOP for not showing compromise or bipartisanship in proposals between the vastly different plans from him and the GOP, as well as accusing Republicans for their efforts to obstruct. Furthermore, I also created a peer review for the article as I plan to nominate it for GA status in the future. AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AmericanRescuePlan2021! I think it's close in the idea, though I'd propose an alternative How does "Biden also criticized the GOP for what he described as a lack of will amongst the GOP to seek a bipartisan compromise on a final aid bill, arguing that the GOP is engaging in willful obstruction of his proposal" sound? I also think we'd need to include a GOP response to Biden's criticism, since we need to maintain partisan neutrality in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikehawk10, the Biden also criticized the GOP for what he described as a lack of will amongst the GOP to seek a bipartisan compromise on a final aid bill, arguing that the GOP is engaging in willful obstruction of his proposal sentence is a good idea. As for criticism regarding the relief package, this source is a good example to use. This poll shows 60% of Republicans back Biden’s stimulus check plan. Do you think my suggestions address your concerns regarding the neutrality in the article section? AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AmericanRescuePlan2021! I'm thinking more along the lines of a GOP response to Biden's criticism, though it would also be fine to include Rep. Brady's response that is in the USA Today article (he's relatively important on budgetary issues). I am having trouble finding a source that contains a GOP member directly responding to the exact statement that Biden provided, and I think that would be best in terms of balance. But, including a substantive GOP criticism would also solve the NPOV issue in my mind. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikehawk10, I just added a paragraph regarding criticism and support about his plan. I also added Kevin Brady’s statement regarding it along with a CNBC source (rather than the USA Today source) criticizing it for not fulfilling a promise to deliver $2,000. Do you think the neutrality in the article looks better? —AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanRescuePlan2021: Looks good! I think it could be improved to include more balance, but feel free to remove the NPOV tag. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove the tag. Thank you for your help regarding the article. AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I uncollapsed the thread at Talk:Uyghur genocide to give other a chance to comment. I agree with you, but ANI will want to see that a discussion took place on the talk page before going there.

Thank you for the work you are doing on that article.  // Timothy :: talk  20:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and for the kind words! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PailSimon (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Note: PailSimon has been sitebanned for disruptive editing as the result of a community consensus decision at WP:ANI — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PailSimon.  // Timothy :: talk  18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the Raw Story RfC and for updating RSP. The backlog at WP:ANC can certainly use more skilled non-admin closers such as yourself :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Thank you so much for the kind comment! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your RfC closure here, which mostly adhered to the consensus in the discussion. However, there's a large problem by including Turkey as a Belligerent. There was little to no consensus for this except mostly from users with known biases (and who had almost no proper WP:RS sources backing this other than an involved country's government's claim). This is more problematic as Turkey is already included as Support and we're including an undersourced Alleged party in the infobox. Therefore I'm asking you to review this part of your closure. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this one needs to be reviewed. The source literally states what Armenia "said", nothing solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.156.161 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden and 151.135.156.161: I've taken another look. My review is as follows:

"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" per WP:CONSENSUS. Regarding whether or not there was consensus to include Turkey as an "alleged belligerent," I looked at the arguments posed by both sides as to whether they constituted a belligerent. I'll try to summarize the arguments below (from how I read them) and to provide a summary the sources used associated with each. I'll also provide my assessment on the reliability of these sources, which matters in terms WP:V for the quality of arguments on each side.

The typical argument boiled down to an argument along the lines of presenting a source, stating that tha RS, and then claiming that the RS backed the claim that Turkey is a belligerent. Other arguments posed included arguments that Turkey (or Turkish organizations) paid mercenaries to fight in the conflict, making Turkey a party to the claim. I will address consensus on the sourcing in this section, and I will address consensus on whether Turkey paid mercenaries (and if this would qualify as Turkey being a belligerent) in the Determining Consensus section below.

Those that put forward that Turkey is, in fact a belligerent, include that several links that they hold are RS that back their claims. The sources they list include RIA Novosti, Greek City Times, Kommersant, Reuters, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, 1 Lurer, Stratfor, and Atalayar. An editor also included a primary source statement from the European Parliament in support of placing Turkey as a belligerent.

An evaluation of all of these sources was undertaken. Several of these are perennial reliable sources, but many sources are of questionable reliability. RIA Novosti is Russian state-owned media, and is likely not reliable on the issue, while previous discussions regarding the discussion of Kommersant have been mixed regarding its reliability. (Kommersant's reliability itself may be a worthy RfC candidate, due to the scattered nature of these previous discussions, but it appears to be a lower quality source than some other sources provided). I cannot speak to the quality of 1 Lurer's Armenian-language reporting, but its English language reporting does not appear to be very detailed whatsoever. Regarding Atalayar, I could not find discussion on its reliability on the English Wikipedia's WP:RSN archives, and there is no local consensus regarding its reliability. It looks like the site may use syndicated content without labeling it native advertising, which gives strong pause towards considering it a reliable source. The Greek City Times appears to have a strong anti-Turkish bias that may influence the reliability of its reporting on the topic. Previous discussions indicate that some editors have generally found Stratfor reliable (1 2 3 4), though these discussions are old. Reuters, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times are generally reliable per WP:RSP.

There were two main sorts of arguments against including Turkey as a belligerent.

The first such argument was that Turkey provided only diplomatic support, which was articulated by a party whose signature is not present, and it provides no sources. This was clearly not in line with consensus.

The second such argument was that Turkey only provided support to Azerbaijan, but was not a belligerent. There is strong consensus that Turkey at least supported Azerbaijan in the war. No sources were provided by those opposing the inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent to affirmatively state that Turkish troops did not engage in fighting.

Instead, the argument against the inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent follows along a similar vein to WP:PROVEIT, in that these editors challenged those who aimed to include Turkey as a belligerent to provide reliable sources to back their claims:

• Grandmaster, articulatd that "direct involvement means regular Turkish army fighting, and second, the majority of reliable sources do not support this claim".
• AnomalousAtom stated that "there are many sources for their support but no good neutral sources for their active fighting".
• CuriousGolden stated that "it's not a belligerent as there were no confirmed cases of Turkish troops fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh".

There was also a consensus among those who opposed inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent that Turkey's alleged employment of Syrian Mercenaries would not qualify as Turkey being a "belligerent" in the war. This was perhaps most clearly articulated by Grandmaster, who wrote that "Syrian mercenaries are not Turkish army, and 'provision of Syrian fighters' is certainly not direct involvement. Direct involvement means direct involvement, and not via someone else".

As I noted above, WP:CONSENSUS states that "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." My discerning of consensus regarding this particular topic relies upon answering the following questions:

There is strong consensus that Syrian Mercenaries constitute belligerents in the conflict, which is not being challenged in this review. There appears to be a moderately strong consensus that Turkey's transfer of mercenaries from Syria into this conflict in fact occurred and is supported by RS. At the same time, there appears to be a weak consensus among editors in the discussion that the fighting of these Syrian Mercenaries with logistical support from Turkey and payments from Turkish companies does not constitute the Turkish state's direct involvement in the conflict as a belligerent. I do not discern that there is a community consensus that is different from the local consensus regarding the sufficient conditions of being deemed a belligerent, so this will not change.

In determining consensus, I weighed arguments that relied only upon the lower quality or challenged sources (RIA Novosti, Kommersant, Atalayar, Greek City Times, and 1 Lurer) less, as there is not a community consensus that any of them constitute WP:RS and Wikipedia policy (notably WP:V) requires RS to back up claims. Per community consensus, Stratfor, Reuters, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times constitute reliable sources. These sources were read and evaluated for their claims by parties to the discussion. It is uncontested by all parties that a direct involvement of the Turkish military would qualify Turkey as a belligerent.

The Stratfor piece states that the company has "confirmation of Turkish F-16 fighter aircraft operating out of Azerbaijan amid conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh." Reuters reports that "Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer." The NYT piece reports direct Turkish military involvement as allegations, but it does find them notable enough to report. WSJ and The Guardian do not make reference to alleged Turkish direct involvement. As many who oppose the inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent note, the majority of RS are not reporting that Turkey directly involved itself in the war as a belligerent. That being said, it also appears to be the case that multiple RS are reporting allegations of involvement. WP:DUE states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." There appears to be an implied consensus that inclusion of these allegations is due, as multiple RS are reporting about these allegations.

(I should note that if there is community consensus that Kommersant is a reliable source, then this analysis is deficient because it does not weight Kommersant as highly as it should in the case it is reliable. I see no evidence, however, of such a consensus regarding Kommersant's reliability existing, as I could not find an RfC in the WP:RSN archives that was closed one way or the other and there appears to be no local consensus on the use of the source.)

It is unclear whether or not Turkey directly involved itself in the conflict by using its military, and editors find no consensus among RS as to whether or not Turkey did do so. There is weak consensus to not include Turkey as a belligerent, without any qualification. However, there also appears to be weak consensus, in line with reporting from RS, that Turkey is allegedly a belligerent party. Per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined... when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. I did not do that in my closure and the subsequent edits, so I will modify it to ensure that any mention is accompanied by an attribution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikehawk10. Thank you for your efforts concerning this RfC. Do you think this will be appropriate to include Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as an alleged belligerent to the infobox? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, about alleged by Armenia. On 6 November 2020, Sergey Naryshkin, the Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, also confirmed the presence of Turkish intelligence service during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. [1] Kommersant also reported about this. To my opinion, this is not correct to say alleged by Armenia.

• Hello. You're right; my shorthand fix was a bit too narrow in its description. The concluding logic is that all allegations that are included should be attributed and that reliable sources should be provided to back them. At the time of review, I noticed that only Armenia qualified for that, since there's not really a local consensus on the page that either of the sources you've provided are RS but there is community consensus regarding the Armenian allegations being notable. That being said, there is currently an RfC on the reliability of Kommersant, which could affect community consensus regarding the source's reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikehawk10, I also had some concerns about the consensus, pertaining to Turkey's role. Saying "Alleged by Armenia" uses a word to avoid (MOS:ALLEGED), and sources like the European Parliment, Stratfor, and Reuters are not affiliated with Armenia. Also, the strength of an argument seemed to have been lost under a vote, which the consensus is not. The article erroneously cites the Syrian mercenaries as being from Azerbaijan, while the citations are actually saying that they are from Turkey. And please review these particular quotes from the sources:

the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh, as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries - European Parliament

The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces. - Stratfor

Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer - Reuters

Stratfor literally says military involvement goes beyond support. --Steverci (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi steverci, MOS:ALLEGED states that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." It's certainly a word to watch, but I believe that the closure is in line with this guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources saying it was Turkey, not Azerbaijan as the article currently portrays, that provided the mercenaries? Or the confirmed fighter jets? And the source saying Turkey's involvement goes far beyond support? --Steverci (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Mercenaries fought for Azerbaijan, hence they're shown under Azerbaijan, showing it under Turkey (especially with the Alleged tag) would imply that precedence of mercenaries is disputed. About the jets, no RS states that Azerbaijan actually used those jets, all of them simply state that they stayed in Ganja during the war, which is quite irrelevant to everything. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 05:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mercenaries, as I noted above on this talk page in my response to the initial request for me to review the closure, "there appears to be a weak consensus among editors in the discussion that the fighting of these Syrian Mercenaries with logistical support from Turkey and payments from Turkish companies does not constitute the Turkish state's direct involvement in the conflict as a belligerent. I do not discern that there is a community consensus that is different from the local consensus regarding the sufficient conditions of being deemed a belligerent." There was no aspect of the discussion that talked about whether the Turkish presence of F-16 jets in the region were sufficient to constitute Turkey's inclusion as a belligerent in the war, nor a comparative source reliability analysis regarding the purpose of the F-16s being there→. There was discussion about whether or not the Turkish government's use of transport planes constituted Turkey being a belligerent in the war, about which there was a consensus that the actions were not sufficient to qualify Turkey as a belligerent. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About those "Turkish companies", this article reveals the truth about them: In a likely attempt to give the Turkish government deniability, mercenary logistics were handled by SADAT, a Turkish private defense contractor owned by Adnan Tanriverdi, President Erdogan’s former chief military counselor. (SADAT also handles the mercenary logistics for the thousands of SNA fighters Turkey has sent to Libya.). So these aren't actually "private" companies, in practice they are controlled by the Turkish government and the European Parliament accused just "Turkey" of deploying the mercenaries.

I'd also propose replacing ""alleged" with "claimed" because it sounds more neutral and removing the bullet point, because no one alleges Azerbaijan controls Turkey. --Steverci (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Should point out to Mikehawk10 that the article Steverci has linked above was written by the infamous Linsdey Snell, a journalist with a record of Anti-Turkish behaviour and definitely not a reliable source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for Snell being "infamous" or "Anti-Turkish"? The only record she seems to have is accurate coverage that isn't disputed by most mainstream sources. She has photographic evidence of the terrorist mercenaries that Turkey claims do not exist. Reporting things that Turkey doesn't like isn't "Anti-Turkish" for your information. --Steverci (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was directed to Mikehawk, but scrolling through her Twitter account is enough to understand why she's biased. She married a member of a terrorist group and was later arrested by Turkey for illegally crossing the border, which all contribute to her Anti-Turkish agenda. But again, my comment was directed to Mikehawk10 because I'm sure you won't find anything she says biased, so it'd be best to not discuss this here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few things in response to the above discussion:

1. The article linked by Steverci is from The Grayzone, which is listed as deprecated on WP:RSP. Any evaluation on the biased source allegations that CuriousGolden puts forward is secondary to the status that the source is deprecated, so I don't believe that I need to address the issue of bias here.
2. This is beginning to rehash the discussion that was on the relevant talk page. I understand that this is a controversial topic and that the consensus on the page was rough, but consensus was achieved in the talk page discussion. I do not intend to become an active editor on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war except inasmuch as it relates to any discussions that I may close as an uninvolved editor.
3. It is fully appropriate to ask for a closure review. It appears that (and please correct me if I am wrong), there might be a perception that I was not aware of significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion that would have been relevant in the closure, which is appropriate grounds to seek a closure review. However, I don't see significant additional information regarding Turkey's involvement, at least as far as reliable sources are concerned. As a result, I don't see a need to further modify the closure at this time.
4. Per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined provided the allegations are attributed. It's a better word in this case than claimed, owing to the insight provided at MOS:CLAIM.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll open a review soon; it's probably best because new information linking Turkey came about only in the past couple days. In the meantime though, will you remove the bullet point in front of Turkey because it implies that Turkey is a part of Azerbaijan? And wouldn't it be better to put "alleged by Armenia" in parenthesis after Turkey (such as in articles like Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict, and Insurgency in Paraguay) rather than in a bold title above it? In the article's current styling, a bold title means the country had a sub-role, so this styling doesn't make sense for a country that is being alleged to have been a full participant and looks confusing. --Steverci (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci that makes sense; feel free to fix the formatting. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing a contentious RFC, which followed contentious discussion, which followed contentious editing, which followed a contentious -- war, Some areas in Wikipedia have battleground editing because they have been battlegrounds, either in the recent past, or in the past. I conducted moderated discussion of the infobox dispute that was sent back to the community via the RFC. In other words, I tried briefly to resolve the dispute, and then made it be Someone Else's Problem. So it is back to the community yet again. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike. Since the closure review was your suggestion, would you be interested in taking a look at it and offering your opinion? No one else has reviewed it yet, and I believe the input of the original closer would be helpful. I have provided new sources that, at least in my opinion, leave little doubt Turkey should be considered a belligerent. I also want to point out that at least two users who were against adding Turkey are now banned and/or blocked, so the already weak consensus against listing Turkey as a belligerent is now even weaker. --Steverci (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you please explain me on what basis did you close the RFC listing Turkey as a support and separately as a alleged belligerent? I have just reviewed the answers and here is the actual result:

• Include as support (8 signed users and 1 unsigned user)
• Include as belligerent (5 signed users and 1 unsigned user)
• Include as alleged belligerent (1 signed user)
• Don't include as belligerent (1 signed user)

KHE'O (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I was asked this question at around the time of the closure, after which I posted a lengthy response a section above this one. In short, as I stated above, it is unclear whether or not Turkey directly involved itself in the conflict by using its military, and editors find no consensus among RS as to whether or not Turkey did do so. There is weak consensus to not include Turkey as a belligerent, without any qualification. However, there also appears to be weak consensus, in line with reporting from RS, that Turkey is allegedly a belligerent party. Per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined... when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.

To add on, the claim that Armenia has alleged that Turkey is involved in the war is [[WP:|verifiable]], as established by sources presented that are reliable for that claim, and the fact that there was such an allegation was repeated by multiple editors even that did not state support for the inclusion of Turkey as an outright belligerent. It's not a vote, and I did not read an editor being in favor of listing them as support as necessarily being in opposition with them being listed as an alleged belligerent. As it turns out, this was correct; at least one editor who had written in favor of "support" backed the closure that had been made during a closure review, which petered out with a general vibe that the closure regarding the status of Turkey was fine. If you're interested in reading more in-depth, check out the section on this page titled "RfC Closure" or reading through the closure review archive from WP:AN. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you were the original creator of Uyghur genocide. Kudos, not many editors can say they created an article with ~150,000 views every month on a major international issue. Nice work and much respect. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  16:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! I really did not expect to see the developments over the course of the following year regarding the page and its topic and it is humbling to see the amount of reach that the page gets. I didn't realize the reach the page gets, so I'm a bit in awe of the stat. Also, thank you so much for your work on the article! I know that it can be a bit of a time stressor but you have helped to make the article better and I appreciate the work that you do. :) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Preferences > Gadgets, you can click the option for xTools and it will show the page statistics just below the page title, along with the author name and other info for the page you're on.  // Timothy :: talk  01:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reverting any of my changed without discussion. If you disagree with any of my statements, please open a discussion on the talk page. I will also open a discussion to rename the article to "Uyghur Genocide Allegations", because there plainly is no evidence to support allegations of genocide. Please also elaborate on your reasoning for reverting my edit. Why shouldn't we use the word "claim", considering that these are allegations not supported by evidence?AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the relevant talk page that partly involved an editor making changes to the status of the lead. In that discussion (and the follow-on at WP:ANI), it was concluded that the user, PailSimon, was engaging in prohibited POV pushing by removing relevant information from the article and by altering the lead so as to remove the current first sentence. The current status of the article has received consensus support, and a single editor cannot simply wipe away by making an edit.

My reasoning for reverting your edit follows from the fact that the current lead has consensus backing. If you believe consensus has changed since then, or you have significant additional information that you believe should be considered in determining a new consensus, I'm happy to engage with you within the section of the article talk page that you recently created. I don't see either of those things being the case at this time, and I believe that the lead that was on the page prior to your revert followed all relevant policies, which is why I have reverted your edit. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike and TucanHolmes, I did some closing and archiving on the talk page for Uyghur genocide. The threads I archived were all either dormant or finished. I did so BOLDLY without discussion, so I wanted to notify a couple of frequent participants; if you see any threads you would like reopened and restored, just let me know.  // Timothy :: talk  04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your closure of this RfC at Emanuel_Cleaver: I believe that your closure was in error. You wrote that there is a "weak but present consensus" for conclusion, but a "weak" consensus is usually not sufficient for new, challenged materials relating to biographies of living persons. Moreover, the editors who participated were fairly evenly split, and the editors who opposed inclusion articulated specific grounds based on the sourcing and on Wikipedia policy. When editors are evenly split, the default should be exclusion.

Most importantly, however, WP:BADNAC says that a "non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." I don't believe you are an admin (correct me if I'm wrong).

Will you please revert your close, and allow an uninvolved administrator to close this discussion? I'm also tagging Muboshgu, an admin who participated in this discussion. Neutrality^talk 18:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality:Thank you for your note. You seem to have concerns regarding the way the close went, and it appears that you are providing an argument that the content should be excluded due to the absence of consensus. I'll provide a more thorough rationale behind how I discerned what the consensus was, for the sake of full transparency.

Per the relevant policy page, "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Put another way, ascertaining consensus is not simply the counting of heads, but a process by which the quality of arguments given on each side are presented in light of relevant policies.

There were essentially two camps in the discussion; one camp appears to favor exclusion of the content altogether, while the other favors inclusion of the content in some form.

During the discussion, editors offered various arguments in opposition to the inclusion of the content. One of these arguments, which was well articulated by Muboshgu, was that the comments would not have a WP:LASTING impact. Along these lines, several editors point to the WP:10YEARTEST as a reason to exclude the event. Some editors simply referred to the event as "trivia" or "trivial". Another editor commented to say that if the content were to be included, that it should be presented as a "wholly bonkers over-reactive response to the incident."

During the discussion, other editors offered various arguments in favor of the inclusion of the content. The primary argument in favor is that the event received "drew extensive media coverage" that satisfied criteria for notability. The body of with evidence to support this argument was largely provided by The Gnome and Grahaml35.

The policy question that is up for discussion, both implicitly and explicit, is whether the inclusion of the content is in line with WP:CONPOL. These specific disagreements (and my understanding of responses to them) are listed below:

• Muboshgu has brought up concerns about WP:DUE. In a comment prior to the RfC, the editor stated that their reasoning for this was that the quotation would not be WP:LASTING, which preceded a decently long exchange with Grahaml35 that elucidated each of their views on the issue and led to Grahaml35's calling of the RfC. Put shortly, the dispute between these two could be boiled down to whether or not the content was notable. Editors later offered specific examples of news stories and op-eds that were published after the date, though some disputed whether or not each of these articles and op-eds were evidence of lasting coverage.
• Snooganssnoogans noted that any inclusion of content that states that Cleaver was "misconstruing" something in issuing his utterance was undue. It does not appear that anybody specifically contested this claim.

The local discussion does reveal that there was division among editors on the issue, but a careful examination of the discussion between editors as time went on led me to conclude that there was a rough consensus for inclusion of information about the utterance itself based upon the quality of the relevant arguments. Evidence that editors (including HAL333 and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d) appear to have changed their minds from opposing to supporting inclusion in response to the large number of sources provided by other editors party to the discussion serves to further confirm that there is consensus that the utterance is noteworthy for inclusion owing to its received significant coverage (even though the majority of editors might find it a bit odd that the media covered it in the way that it did).

In your message on my talk page, you seem to be bringing up points along the lines of WP:ONUS, which states that "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," and WP:NOCON, which states that "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here).

What you're saying is true; if no policy is violated, then the question of inclusion is up to consensus (and an absence of consensus should be read as leaving the article as it was previously stable).

When I stated that there was, "weak but present consensus," I was attempting to convey that there looked like there was rough consensus that the information was notable enough to include on the basis that it received broad, international coverage from reliable sources. Rough consensus is generally the standard that is used on Wikipedia regarding these sorts of discussions and I don't see any apparent policy violations regarding the fact that it is specifically a WP:BLP.

On a separate note, there is a deletion guideline also says that controversial closes should best be handled by an admin. That being said, this was not a deletion discussion and I cannot find any policies or guidelines that would preclude me from making a closure on the basis that I am not an admin, nor is the basis that I am not an admin a reason for overturning the closure of the discussion without other cause. (WP:BADNAC is an essay).

You're obviously well within your rights to request a formal closure review. In part due to reasons I have outlined above, I believe that the close was correctly made and that, as an uninvolved editor, it was kosher for me to do so. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a closure review at AN. I am candidly disappointed that you've not agreed to allow an uninvolved administrator to perform the close. It seems very clear to me that there was no consensus for inclusion of this content. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure says specifically that non-admins should not close discussions in exactly the same circumstances present here (and that guidance is not limited to deletion discussions). But we'll let the community decide. Neutrality^talk 01:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Mikehawk10, I didn't look at the details of any of this, but a good rule to follow is if any editor asks any closer (even an admin closer) to revert a close for any reason so a formal request for closure can be processed by an uninvolved admin, the closer should reopen and allow that process to proceed. I follow this rule for normal threads and questions I close and formal RfCs (which I've rarely closed), the individual facts and circumstances don't matter to me, if a request is made the process should be allowed to take place. Neutrality has made a very reasonable request and is more experienced than either of us, so I urge you to reopen the thread and the AN thread can be closed. You know I offer you this advice with nothing but good will.  // Timothy :: talk  03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue and Neutrality:I’ve vacated my closure. It looks like there is a snowball-ish consensus among admins at WP:AN that a neutral admin should review it. I have my qualms about an essay on who should close being a large part of the justification, but ultimately consensus at WP:AN is more important for the particular case and previous RfC have ruled that consensus at that noticeboard is sufficient to overturn a closure.

For the general case, I do believe that it might be productive to have a more expanded upon discussion regarding non-admin closures, so that they could be incorporated into guidelines following community consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel dismayed over this, Mikehawk10. Non-admins receive a lot of scrutiny over their closures. You seem to have a solid grasp over policy, but if you ever want some advice, just message MJL--they received a fair share of crap over the hundreds of contentious RfCs they closed over the years. But that certainly hasn't stopped them! :-) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Thank you for the ping.
Yeah, Mike. Don't worry too much about this individual case. I literally went through the same type of thing before (like almost to the letter to what's happened to you). Just try to learn from it and focus on less contentious closures in the meantime. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and MJL: Thank you for these words. I'll try to handle less-contentious closes until I gain a bit more experience.

Since you are part of the WikiProject:Notre Dame, would you help me source some pages that risk being deleted/redirected, like Alumni Hall, Badin Hall, Carroll Hall, and Keenan Hall. I am trying to improve them to make sure they pass GNG. Thank you.Eccekevin (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Eccekevin, this clearly violates canvasing for votes at AfD. You are free to post to Wikiproject talk pages, but canvasing individual editors you feel will support your position is a significant violation.  // Timothy :: talk  10:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: I think this is probably fine, since it isn’t asking for me to help improve sourcing rather than to come in and vote. We're allowed to neutrally post at the WikiProject to let people know of the AfD and also separately to ask people for help with sourcing. I'm part of the WikiProject but I do not see a reason to believe I would be particularly sympathetic to the dorms or would pull a WP:ILIKEIT sort of argument one way or the other.

@Eccekevin: I am a bit busy immediately but I will look more into it. Generally, student media coverage is not going to be enough to gain notability, though if there's significant coverage from reliable sources independent of ND it may be worthwhile to look. Newspapers.com is a website that might be helpful if you are looking to find old news clips from independent sources, if they exist. We have to look at the dorms case-by-case to determine which ones are notable and which are not. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To you as well, TimothyBlue! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikehawk10, I have closed the above mentioned RfC as requested at ANRFC. I leave it to you to amend WP:RSP. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for letting me know. I've been looking over the close, and I noticed that you wrote that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar and that the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. I've put down the marking as WP:GUNREL for political topics and WP:MREL for non-political topics. I also noted that attribution should be used and that the source is a WP:BIASED source that should not be used to establish WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, among other things. Am I reading your closure correctly? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick opinion: I am working on Draft:South Dining Hall, soon gonna submit for review. Should be accepted, not concerned. But I was wondering if the page should rather be "University of Notre Dame dining halls", with then two sections (and two infoboxes), one for each DH. This because South def is notable (NHRP and so), but North probably might not, hence putting them together might be a good idea (it might be a good idea regardless of notability). Thoughts? Eccekevin (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question in return would be whether or not the dining halls, taken together, are notable as a subject. If most of the relevant coverage is about SDH, and there isn’t really any third-party coverage of NDH, I would hesitate create an article differently so we could lump in information on NDH (if that information is largely composed of self-published sources or trivial mentions in independent sources). If there is reliable, in-depth independent coverage of SDH and not NDH, then I would probably recommend that the SDH article be submitted as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have reverted my change for National Institute of Design (NIT). NID is not one institute but set of institute (Similar to Indian Institutes of Technology, National Institutes of Technology etc) Please check type column in Table Institutes of National Importance#Institutes of National Importance. I had corrected paged to represent it as it is today. Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2021

(UTC) Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Devesh.bhatta: OK. If it's sourced that way then it makes sense. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

shall i revert back? Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mikehawk10. I noticed you prodded Cao Xian (scholar) immediately after I removed the CSD with a note that this deletion won't be uncontroversial. I haven't removed the PROD myself, because I do know how it feels to have the same person reverting all your changes (especially in the heated sphere of page deletion), but I'd like to explain a bit further the situation there and why PROD (which is for uncontroversial deletions only) is likely to be inappropriate for this article.

There are a few things going on here, but the biggest is that this is a very old historical figure. If someone who lived in the sixth century has extant records, they're likely to be considered notable simply by virtue of those records -- or, at the very least, enough people will make the argument for it that the page has a fighting chance at AfD. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination) discussion may be of interest to you -- and that's talking about a much more recent figure. Records further back are even sparser, and people whose identities survived that long more remarkable. (It also may be worth asking some of the keep participants in that conversation, especially the article creator, and reading this accordant discussion.)

The second big thing is that this is a non-Anglophone/non-Western figure. Because sourcing for them is not easy to access for English speakers, it pays to be exceptionally cautious in seeking the deletion of their articles. In addition, this combines with the fact virtually all the coverage here will likely be offline (e.g. in history books) -- meaning you can't just easily search and find things. (Even something like Google Books probably won't work here, as it's biased towards both English and recent publications.)

The third point, which is less important than the other two but still worth noting, is that this has an article on Chinese Wikipedia. At AfD this doesn't matter much, because different projects have different notability guidelines. However, at PROD, this is enough of an indication that deletion may be controversial to decline the tag.

I hope this helps. Vaticidalprophet 05:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Vaticidalprophet: Thank you for posting this. The reason that I chose to go ahead with a PROD rather than an AfD is that even on the Chinese wikipedia, the entry is similarly brief and poorly sourced. It's not a heated area for me, so don't worry on that end, but it's just that the only source appears to be the Old Book of Tang, which is a Chinese historical book that was originally written in the 10th century AD. It's not the case that a person is notable if the only mention of the individual in one published reliable source that was made during medieval China, though I concede it's fully possible that there was another published source involving the person that simply has been lost to time. I'd ordinarily share your concern about proposing articles for deletion when the articles are on other wikipedias. The thing that drove me forward on this is that, between the two wikipedias, there is exactly one source on the person, and it is the same medieval source. I hope this addresses your concerns a bit and gives you a bit of insight into my thought process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other-Wikipedia aspect is a fairly minor one -- the age and language barriers are more significant. I don't think this will get deleted through PROD (which is quite heavily clerked by people with higher standards of PROD-appropriateness than me), though it could happen. It's in a few cross-sections where AfD is heavily indicated over PROD, even if the AfD winds up closing delete ('uncontroversial deletion' and 'likely deletion' are importantly different categories, and I'm not even sure this is in either). Vaticidalprophet 05:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikehawk, I just wanted to say that I have a few pages on my watchlist where you're active—chief among them Uyghur genocide—and every time your name pops up, it is an eminently reasonable suggestion, an attempt to build consensus, or a firm assertion of the worth and dignity of a person or people. It's just so refreshing in controversial areas to have folks bringing all of that to the table, and I wanted to say thank you. Go Phightins! 01:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Jr8825 • Talk 01:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins! and Jr8825: Thank you!!!

Hi Mikehawk10. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikehawk10. I hope that you are very well.

Recently, you reverted this edit of mine at 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf, in which I had undid revision 1017154595 by IP user 2600:1700:FD0:5D80:E86B:D311:E4A7:516B. You stated in your edit summary that what had been done in my revision was, "not typically something we include on wikipedia." It is my impression that what is not appropriate for Wikipedia is the content added in the previous revision by the IP user (who wrote, "Peace Be Upon Him," in the article), and that is why I reverted it. In an abundance of good faith, I just want to check with you; is it possible that you meant to undo the same edit that I undid? Thanks! TheLastClassicist1750 (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheLastClassicist1750! Thank you for alerting me to that; I had intended to revert the IP edit, though I misread the diff and (clearly) undid the wrong edit. Thank you for catching that and sorry for any inconvenience that I caused. A  Self-trout is warranted here.— Mikehawk10 (talk)

No Problem! Thanks! TheLastClassicist1750 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Go Phightins! 21:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!: Thank you!!!! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame 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/COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame 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.

Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which commentary of my own did I add to the article on turkish war of independence? All of the text I added was either from cited books or previous Wikipedia pages. Borab00 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Borab00:The response notice on your page was canned (via Huggle) and it was different than the notice I expected it to place, so I've removed that label. The issue I took was the removal of a bunch of sources and then the subsequent POV-changing of the article (for example stripping the term "genocide") as well as the both-sidesing on it. It looked like the previous framing relied on multiple independent reliable sources and was different than the source you chose to use, which may render the resulting article to have POV issues. Generally, removing a bunch of sources that are there and then replacing it with a single other source points to a POV shift towards the less commonly accepted viewpoint among scholars, which was a bit of a red flag for me.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In removing the word 'genocide' I am simply being consistent with Wikipedia itself, I never denied any genocide. On the Armenian Genocide page, a long talk page discussion has already been conducted on the dates for which the genocide could be considered and the conclusion was 1915-1917. Much of those previous sources were simply opinionated in the first place, while I can do the same thing and just paste a bunch of sources just pandering to my supposed view of the issue. Also, what is wrong with "both sidesing"??? Did both sides not commit atrocities? I have pasted the Wikipedia link to the list of atrocities during the war, I don't understand the objection to this. Borab00 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian genocide does not encompass actions taken by Turkey against other groups, including Greeks and Syriac Christians, during the following period. I've made a comment on the article talk page and I believe that it would be more accessible for everyone involved to respond there, seeing as another editor has made a revert. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for taking the time to close the RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331#RfC: Asian News International (ANI) from the WP:RFCC request!

I wanted to bring up a few points about the close though and ask for a revision of the closing text. I'll number them for convenience of reference:

1. "No consensus to do X" is not the same as "consensus to not do X". On the determination of consensus against the deprecation of the source, it appears to be much closer to "no consensus" than "consensus against".
   • For example, I would agree that there was not a consensus to deprecate the source in this particular discussion, but I do not really see a consensus against deprecation and definitely not a moderately strong consensus being achieved against the deprecation of the source. The two reasons that you cited were
     • One of the two reasons that you cited for your determination of consensus against deprecation was the lack of a numeric lean in favor of deprecation. By itself, the absence of a majority is an argument for "no consensus or consensus against", and does not distinguish between the two. Furthermore in this case, out of 21 total editors there were 9 editors who recommended deprecation and 12 editors (still including editors of the opinion that it should be avoided at all costs) who did not recommend deprecation. Such a close 9-12 numerical balance would typically be considered "no consensus" rather than "consensus against", let alone a moderately strong consensus.
     • The other reason that you cited for your determination of consensus against deprecation was the use of ANI by others. See item 2 below.
     • The deprecation consideration in the close does not mention the arguments by the 9 editors for deprecation (item 3 below)?
2. I agree that the main argument advanced by those recommending the source as generally reliable was WP:USEBYOTHERS, but I do not see that its WP:USEBYOTHERS in regional Indian print and television media, as well as international broadcast media, has been demonstrated by editors to be real and meaningful.
   • The USEBYOTHERS argument about How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source was challenged by several editors during the discussion. The group that argued ANI's USEBYOTHERS only produced a few example sources, almost all of which were individually disputed by other editors as either being unreliable or, especially concerning international broadcast media, as only quoting ANI with attribution. While your close did not claim that there was a consensus that the USEBYOTHERS argument was valid, it was not the the result of the debate (WP:DISCARD) that this argument was demonstrated by editors to be real and meaningful.
3. The arguments against the reliability of ANI on the basis of RS reporting ANI as a source misinformation were barely challenged during the discussion. As you noted in your close, the challenge, which came from one editor (rather than Some editors), was on the reliability of AltNews.in, which was in turn defended by one editor. However, several editors pointed towards the BBC and EU DisinfoLab reports that were also cited to Le Monde, Al Jazeera, and The Diplomat, all of which were unchallenged in the discussion.
   • The summary in the fourth paragraph of the close is not incorrect (other than the singular/plural noted above), but the weight given to its reliable sourcing and it largely being unchallenged in the discussion seems underweighted in the conclusion.
4. On the determination of classificaiton, I see a stronger consensus for classification as a "generally unreliable source" than an "additional considerations apply" given
   • Numerically, there were 8.5 editors of the recommendation that the source is generally reliable (option 1), 1.5 editors of the recommendation that the source is of "additional considerations apply", and 11 editors of the recommendation that the source is generally unreliable or deprecatable (options 3-4).
   • The challenges against the argument for reliability (item 2 above).
   • The level of sourcing for arguments against reliability and the lack of challenges against the argument against reliability (item 3 above).

I hope that you can consider these comments and I appreciate your time & thought into closing this RfC which was more bimodal than any that I have seen recently! — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Thank you for the thoughtful and well-written reply. You bring up some good points here that I'll respond to below; you're correct in that I did not best write the summary in the close. In short, the discussion found no consensus on if it is generally unreliable vs marginally reliable, but there is a consensus that it is not the case that the source is generally reliable. However, if we look closer and break it up, it looks like there is a consensus that the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE for politics, but there isn't a consensus that it's generally unreliable in other fields. I'll update the close accordingly to make this more clear.

1. To respond to point 1, I'll elaborate upon my finding regarding deprecation, since I didn't do that in the close (though I probably should have). There were six editors who outright favored deprecation, three editors who showed a preference somewhere between deprecation and WP:GUNREL, two editors who preferred WP:GUNREL outright, one editor who preferred WP:MREL, one editor who equally preferred WP:MREL and WP:GREL, and 8 editors who preferred WP:GREL. Those who favored deprecation, as I said in my statement, stated that ANI had engaged in pro-government propaganda campaigns and that reliable sources noted that the agency has published false information. Out of those who were between option 3 and option 4, one of them noted that they were very unreliable for Indian politics but didn't express a lean between 3 and 4, one of them strongly leans towards deprecation so I counted them as essentially an option 4 for purposes of the close, and another individual stated that they were not reliable for news on Pakistan and that "appeals to authority" were the sorts of appeals used to back it. (Note: I read this as a criticism of the use of WP:USEBYOTHERS to justify backing a source, though I'll ping Hemiauchenia to make sure I did not misread them.) In general, it looked like there was a consensus on unreliability regarding Indian government-involved politics in particular, which was noted in the close. Of course, consensus is not a vote, and in this case it appears that the arguments laid out by editors both favoring and supporting were based in policy. However, it appears that the arguments against general deprecation had enough weight to them that, when taken in line with the numeric support, signified a rough consensus. Looking at this anew, I do still think that there was a rough consensus not to deprecate at this time given the responses provided by editors in the discussion.
2. I agree that we should ignore irrelevant arguments that are without a base in policy. However, in particular with respect to broadcast media, there didn't seem to be sources presented as evidence against a WP:USEBYOTHERS claim for footage shot by ANI, while there was evidence that ANI footage is used internationally in broadcast media. This is not equivalent to broadcast news reports produced by ANI, though this deserves to be more explicitly stated in the close so as to not convey concerns in that area. It also probably should be phrased as "some editors note" rather than "consensus". Also, as I state below, there is WP:USEBYOTHERS evidence that points towards some reliable sources having treated them as reliable, though the writings in other reliable sources lead to a consensus that the source is not WP:GREL.
3. I misread that chain; you are correct that there is one editor who opposed the use of AltNews. This should be updated. On a separate note, I did not totally write off references to The New Indian Express; the source has done investigative work (Express News Service is also used by the WP:GREL The Indian Express, though I cannot for the life of me figure out which one of the two papers runs the service or if it is a joint operation) in a way that seems like that of a relatively strong Indian WP:NEWSORG.. There isn't community consensus on the reliability of The New Indian Express, however, so this is not given the same weight as other players. Additionally, there is a book that seems to indicate widespread use of ANI in foreign media... but it was published in 2004 so it seems a bit out-of-date (and has a narrow scope of what it is used for). Editors also noted that The Indian Express does not use ANI as a newsfeed, which is currently true as users correctly point out. (I did just notice that if we actually click through the search results provided by editors a bit, we soon find that this also appears to be a recent development since 2018, though I am not sure how that would change the final result given that the TIE both has used it over 4650 times since 2002 and chose to stop using it in 2018, since this cuts at current reliability but might imply some sort of historical reliability, though this was not really discussed.) Given that the evidence presented by editors in the discussion describing inaccurate reporting and propaganda is more recent and more broad, they are weighed higher. None of this, of course, changes the consensus that it's still questionable regarding areas where the current government might have interests, so I'll change that to be more reflective, but it does suggest that there the source has historically been treated as reliable enough for use by RS in some way, though it appears to be less reliable now based upon the evidence that users presented. I don't think it's improperly weighted in light of this, though I could have been better with phrasing.
4. On the determination of classification, I still think that additional considerations apply is the most reflective of the discussion if we are to list it in one line, though I don't think that's optimal. As I noted in my edit summary for my close, I would recommend that it be put down at WP:RSP as generally unreliable for politics and additional considerations apply otherwise. It doesn't look like there's a rough consensus to mark the source as generally unreliable for all of its coverage, though there is certainly a consensus that editors should use caution when using the source. I also agree that "moderately strong" overstated the consensus RE deprecation, but I do believe that there was a rough consensus not to deprecate the use of the source generally that was established in the discussion.

I hope this helps to clarify some things. Let me know if you have any further comments/questions as I go to make changes to the close.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply!

1. I still see that case as much more of a "no consensus for deprecation" than a "rough consensus against deprecation", based on the strength of the sources & arguments for deprecation, but it's one of those cases that lies the grey area in-between. In the end, this doesn't really matter in practice since neither leads to deprecation, and isn't needed in the RSP blurb anyways unless it was actually deprecated.
2. Only a single editor even mentioned footage, and direct video footage would be a WP:PRIMARY source anyways. Besides being a rare reference type, the video footage was barely touched in the discussion, so it should (at most) be mentioned very briefly, proportional to its minimal weight in the discussion. If parts of the summary like Later in the discussion, editors provided evidence regarding the use of ANI in both domestic and international broadcast media, which appears to have been uncontested and However, its WP:USEBYOTHERS in regional Indian print and television media, as well as international broadcast media, has been demonstrated by editors to be real and meaningful are only referring to the video footage, then that needs to be clarified (if not trimmed out).
3. The New Indian Express was only mentioned in two comments in the discussion and the book was only mentioned in one comment. My point about Altnews.in (which would also apply to The New Indian Express) was that it and the challenge to its reliability appears to be represented in the closure summary as a larger part of the discussion than its actual small share of the discussion.
4. I think that "generally unreliable" for politics and government-related topics is a fair appraisal (I don't see that recommendation in your edit summary nor the original closure summary?). I slightly agree with the suggestion of a Fox/HuffPost type split recommendation given the nature of the reliability concerns. As a general note though, very few discussion participants actually made an explicit distinction between mundane/non-political reporting and political/government-related reporting here – much less than the 2020 Fox News RfC and also less than the 2020 HuffPost RfC. With many of the participants arguing for general unreliability and outright deprecation without making that distinction, I'm not sure it can really be summarized with editors do not appear to have found it unreliable for mundane and non-contentious facts. The usage of mundane facts reporting is essentially part of WP:GUNREL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, rather than the discussion itself.

Otherwise, I'll wait for your revision of the closure summary. Thanks as always for your thoughtful engagement. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I've just updated the close to reflect some of these suggestions and to clarify my original intent where it had been lacking. Please take a look and let me know what you think. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for clarification on one thing: you said that you would recommend that it be put down at WP:RSP as generally unreliable for politics, and I agreed with you on that. It is still not in your revised closure summary, but is that what you mean by though there is a rough consensus that its coverage of events relating to and people involved in Indian politics was WP:QUESTIONABLE? — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Yes, that is what I mean. Are the two not generally considered equivalent? I can make that change right now if that would help. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! They basically are the same (the definition at WP:GUNREL is "WP:QUESTIONABLE in most cases"), so revision of that point is up to you. I just wanted to make sure because the shift in terminology used from WP:GUNREL to WP:QUESTIONABLE, for example within the sentence There was no consensus on whether the source is WP:GUNREL, though there is a rough consensus that its coverage of events relating to and people involved in Indian politics was WP:QUESTIONABLE, could have suggested that you might have meant something different with each term. By the way, you may want to add the customary {{subst:nac}} tag at the end. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

uyghurs stronk

Bobbinon (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty name!

starship.paint (exalt) 09:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Deku link (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sedevacantist fasting practices 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/Sedevacantist fasting practices 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.

Veverve (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy 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/Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This user writes for The Signpost.

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

@Smallbones: my pleasure; glad to help!

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. You have new messages at Wikipedia:ANI.
Message added 04:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

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

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

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

Mikehawk10, I hope all is well with you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a problem. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2021 (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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

Template:Z33 HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

You have already reverted within the last 24 hours[2]. Please self-revert your most recent edit[3] to avoid a 1RR violation. Yes reverts made before the 1RR restriction was put into place count towards your 1RR limit if they are within 24 hours. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- @Mikehawk10 Thanks for explaining Mike!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't mention that three weeks later, Counterpunch published a rebuttal by Proyect of the first article by Grover Furr. Furr stated that his article was based on the research of Mark Tauger of West Virginia University. Proyect says that Tauger has a "reputation as a leading authority on the famine, while noting he has never written a book about it.[4]

In their 2004 book about the Ukrainian famine, Davies and Wheatcroft analyze and reject Tauger's analysis, but they do not call him a holodomor denier. They provide a good analysis of the political factors influencing the debate. (pp. xiii ff.)[5]

While Tauger is popular in Russia, he reviewed Anne Applebaum's book on the famine for the History News Network,[6] which is hosted by George Washington University and has editorial oversight.[7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This information was clearly stated in the draft version you saw, [8] .The biographical information is sourced also. It's to a reliable source, his university webpage; this is considered sufficiently reliable for routine unchallenged biographical facts. And there's a good source for the key factor, IEEE.

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

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