Jump to content

User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this conduct already a violation?

As you issued this warning, I was curious whether or not you would consider some of the edits made by the user, such as [1][2][3] and general issues of being somewhat aggressive (example) - and the general conduct, particularly on talk pages - to be problematic enough to issue a second warning, or if this is still civil and free of edit warring?

Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As for the second part of your question (edit warring), none of the edits you have linked are edit warring, since they all appear to be original talk page comments rather than reverts. The warning that you have mentioned was from a consensus at AE, and it focused on slow-mo edit warring.
As for the first part (civility), I would need to think longer and take a closer look, and I don’t anticipate having much time this week to do so.
— Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, don’t worry, there is no urgency! :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hullo, rather odd question

Out of curiosity, is it worth RevDel'ing this edit from almost 20 years ago? I feel it is libelous but I dunno. Cheers! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 00:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I conferred with a member of the oversight team and we've decided not to apply revision deletion to the edit. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! Out of curiosity, where does one draw the line with this sort of thing? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually upon looking again I had missed the allegation of criminal conduct at the very bottom of the page. I'm going to revdel that now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah thanks! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I'm wondering what I've done to provoke the warnings on my talk page? Please note, I am trying to take a wikibreak so you may wish to drop me an email if an urgent reply is required. WCMemail 10:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30 § Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK until a consensus is reached. Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed request and being civil

Thank you for the kind reply to Markus Prokott when he requested extended confirmation. Sometimes it feels that some experienced users are a bit blunt towards less experienced users requesting or doing something not perfectly according to guideline. I know the guidelines are all there, but the volume is overwhelming and some of us have not read everything yet. Thank you again. Thermofan (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Admin-shopping

Hi Red-tailed hawk,

I thought you were very fair and even-handed in the way you handled this editwarring dispute yesterday I was involved in.

I just wanted to bring it to your attention that Beccanyr appears unsatisfied with this result and is engaging in admin-shopping by reaching out to another admin they seem friendly with here.

Thanks, Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I don't find that to be admin shopping; the user made a post on a noticeboard, and then reached out to an uninvolved administrator to ask the admin to take a look. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk, I am concerned that Peter L Griffin appears to be continuing to war toward their preferred version of their page. [1] and [2] are separate reverts within 24 hours of one another, at least. I stopped looking after I found two. (Tried to report on 3RRN; Twinkle failed me.) I am moreover concerned about the general pattern that I see as a minimally involved editor: the editing pattern looks like WP:STONEWALLing and WP:Civil POV pushing to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there Russ,
I am aware that Death of Nex Benedict is contentious and that 1RR is in effect, and I have been very carful to not violate that.
The first link you share is not a revert, but a normal edit adding contextual information -- "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." Only the second edit is a revert, and one revert is not in violation of 1RR. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Not to mention, there is also an exemption for removing unsourced information, and my edit was exactly that -- so it could even be argued that there were zero reverts for 1RR purposes. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I do, however, want to bring notice to violations of 1RR by User:Sawerchessread, who appears to make POV edits by removing reference to water pouring from the lead:
[1], [2] Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The edit summary "removing this is highly contentious" makes it clear that Griffin knew that he was reverting an earlier edit in the 1st revert (precisely, [3]). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If the first edit is a revert, who am I reverting? Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I have gotten extremely busy in my personal life recently, so I write in haste. If an edit returns content to as it was in a previous revision in some non-trivial way (I.e. not fixing a clear typo) then it is a revert. If the meaning fundamentally changes because of an edit, then it is a revert. I don’t have the ability to dig through diffs and assess admin actions at the moment owing to my busy-ness, though any other admin is, and I trust that someone else will take a look at the present report on the AN3 board. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Red-tailed hawk, sorry to be a bother yet again. I seem to have been reported for edit warring on Death of Nex Benedict again by a different user. I've been mindful since last time, thought, and I don't think you'll find that I have -- though the other user has edited in violation of 1RR. Since you handled this last time, I thought you might want to handle this again.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Peter_L_Griffin_reported_by_User:Sawerchessread_(Result:_) Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Red-tailed hawk,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Gladys (owl)

I would be interested in your thoughts and comments and page improvements on the Gladys (owl) | Talk:Gladys (owl) page which was proposed for deletion one day after it was created. It is about an escaped Eurasian eagle-owl that later was killed after getting hit by a vehicle. However, this occured in Minnesota, not New York City. Myotus (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I don't really have the time to go through the sourcing at the moment. My apologies. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Going about an amendment

My arbitration case felt very stacked against me at the end so I didn't bother with defending myself.

The flour massacre article has become unrecognizable compared to when I last edited it; that of course does not excuse my violation of 1RR. I am simply saying that the dust has settled and that my edit war with BilledMammal was a blip in retrospect. I will admit that I went overboard with reverting Alpoin117, but I still don't think a vandal who insulted me warranted a permanent ban.

All in all I would only like for my suspension to not be indefinite. Half a year would be good enough. I've grown to be less impulsive since this all started, especially for an environment as heated as ARBPIA. I enjoyed adding content on lesser-known events within the topic such as protests and I was even the first person to mention Aaron Bushnell's name on Wikipedia at the article for self-immolation. I'm sorry for this message if I'm not allowed to file for an amendment on people's talk pages. Feel free to suggest editing restrictions that I may undertake in exchange for being able to edit in ARBPIA again, when and if that moment arrives. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

10xTravel Draft Edit

Hi, you left a comment asking if I could explain the 3 sources I think fit the qualifications for the 10xTravel draft (found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:10xTravel). I think sources 3 and 4 (these are from the same ABC News story but with some different info), source 8, and source 10 are most fitting for those qualifications. However I also think the overall grouping of all the sources I've listed add up to a reputable amount/quality of sourcing. If you could re-review this, I would appreciate it. Thank you so much. Editor782 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Sorry to bother you, I just wanted to check on this and see if you had a chance to look at it. Thank you!
Editor782 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@Editor782 Red-tailed hawk is a on an extended wiki-break and probably won't reply any time soon. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Philipnelson99 is someone filling in for them or is there another step I should take to continue this process with another user? Thank you for your help! Editor782 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Editor782 You can resubmit the draft via Articles for Creation again and another AFC reviewer will review it at some point. There should be a big button that says "Resubmit" that you can click. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Help pls

I need help, i don't know where I can get user boxes and/or make my own, so I need help... Lilly is cool (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Devin gambit has been accepted

Devin gambit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

GIJN and INN members

Hi @Red-tailed hawk, you seem to be the first person to post about GIJN and INN in reference to reliability on the perennial sources noticeboard.
Do you think that membership in either organization, given their journalistic standards for their members, is sufficient for a publication to be considered generally reliable? (I started discussions on INN and GIJN talk pages, but have never initiated a discussion at the perennial sources noticeboard) Superb Owl (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: WP:NEWSORG reminds us that while News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, it is also the case that [n]ews reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. A lot of INN members are going to fall into the less-established outlets bucket, and we might want to use caution with some of them. There are also some entities that are a part of the GJIN that are not newsrooms (there are a few media schools and the like, but also some news-adjacent nonprofits like the National Freedom of Information Center that are more focused on providing resources to journalists or engaging in public interest litigation than doing the reporting themselves). As such, it might be a bit of an oversimplification to consider a news group as generally reliably on the sole basis of membership in either organization, particularly so for the Institute for Nonprofit News. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Red-tailed hawk for explaining WP:NEWSORG approach. I just learned Wikipedia uses some third-party resources to determine unreliability with WP:CiteWatch, but it sounds like you do not know of any third-parties that are used to establish general reliability by enforcing, for example, editorial standards to retain membership in a group like INN or GIJN? Superb Owl (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The list that has the closest thing to a community consensus is WP:RSP, which is more or less just a compilation of discussions that occurred on RSN. Things like Citewatch or Headbomb's cite highligher script don't necessarily represent community consensus (and in the case of Citewatch, sometimes flag things as unreliable even after community RfC has concluded otherwise), but they are tools that can be well used when one knows the tools' limitations.
To answer more directly: our policies and guidelines don't brainlessly outsource source reliability evaluation to third-parties on Wikipedia. There is the concept of use by others, meaning that how other reliable sources use a particular source can be seen as evidence regarding that source's reliability, but we don't have any particular third-party do the work of conclusively saying which sources are good or bad. Some published lists (like Beall's list) are influential in identifying subpar, but policies and guidelines do not give them preference in and of themselves. As for determining sources that are always good-to-go, we likewise don't rely on third party lists or membership in industry self-regulatory groups (such as the U.K.'s IPSO, which enforces journalistic standards on newspapers with the ability to issue fines for journalistic malpractice) as being definitive in and of itself (i.e. WP:DAILYMAIL).
Rather than having based on industry group membership, Wikipedians examine the sources in light of the reliable sources guideline (including the special guidance for biomedical information). When there's disagreement as to a particular source's reliability, talk page discussions regarding source reliability in context take place, and there are also more broad discussions on RSN when those don't resolve. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Abuser is back

The user behind this range you blocked has returned to this IP address. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Somehow this block seems to affect also other users [4]. --Florentyna (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
To assess collateral better, {{checkuser needed}}. I had put a two-week block on the range Special:Contributions/112.202.0.0/17 because I had not seen any productive editing over the past week or so, and specific IPs on the range had already been blocked before. For that reason, I'm not apt to lift it unless there's a good bit of collateral that I'm not able to see owing to multiple logged-in users being on the range. If it's a very small number of trusted users, they could simply request WP:IPBE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there's a fair bit of collateral here, and it's quite a large range for a hardblock anyway. I'm going to adjust your block down to Special:Contributions/112.202.96.0/20 which covers the vandal's activity at least in the timeframe that I can see, and that will consolidate some other blocks on this range that seem to be targeting the same LTA. I'm limited by policy in what I can say about Stvbastian, but I'll grant them IPBE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not supposed to modify your block without your permission, but I have blocked the smaller range, so I think your block is no longer necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Given the results, I'll pull the hardblock on the wider range. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Just the edit summary, not the edit: [5]. Self-explanatory, I think. CMD (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

U.S. 250th gif

I've left a note at the U.S. 250th birthday about keeping the wonderful gif as its lead image. Given the quality of the gif, its defining attributes per the page topic which other images would have a hard time matching, and the fact that it's from the official Commission itself which is overseeing the 250th (as far as I know nobody from the Commission has complained that it is being misused). let's try to save this one. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

. If it were to come from the Commission, it would be in the public domain as a U.S. Federal Government work. But my understanding is that the image doesn't come from the United States Semiquincentennial Commission, but rather from an NGO. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The video is from the official website of the Commission, please scan down the page. The extraction should be kept and used on the page (which actually has not other usable image than this one). Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe Allreet and Gwillhickers would have an interest in this question. Please take a look at the links and websites, the video portion does seem to be hosted on the Semiquincentennial Commission's official website. No reason to lose this "perfect" opening image to the U.S. 250th birthday page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

ABC News RM

11,000 links to update! I have decided that this was a terrible idea, and we should both be trouted - you for proposing it, and me for closing it. (I haven't moved the article yet; I'm going to wait till all the links are updated) BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to crank out the changes using WP:DISAMASSIST; will make the changes over the next couple of days. In the meantime, I'm going to move the page, since the tool requires the dab to be at the base before it allows that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
RT Hawk, you might want to check BilledMammal's talk page before you jump on things. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Noted. I've already moved the page to ABC News (United States), though if there is a close challenge coming I'll wait to move the dab to usurp the main page and hold off on the Disamassist. Thank you for alerting me to that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm about to head out, and I have no wish to "supervise" any part of the process, but it seems clear to me that the process needs to be redone. Thanks so much, Drmies (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I do see that it's been taken to move review, so I'll leave it be until that closes. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you please explain your action

I am rather confused as to how you decided I want Pbritti to renounce the Catholic faith. Did someone tell you this? Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

ps I am removing the warning, which I believe is mistaken, but I would like an answer to that question if you don't mind, please Elinruby (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe I asserted that you have. You pressed the editor on whether or not he has answered the question about his affiliations with the Catholic Church; regardless if he were to affirm that he were not Catholic (i.e. disavowing Catholicism) or if he responded that he is Catholic, it would not matter in terms of the underlying content dispute. Because Wikipedia does not require the former for his participation, your pressing him on this was unwarranted, and that sort of pressing should be avoided, as I noted on your talk page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe that I can discuss what I believe is happening except at a noticeboard, so the misunderstanding is understandable. I just wanted to know if anyone had discussed this with you. But for the record: I am Catholic. I do not care if he is Sikh or Hindu or Muslim or Catholic himself. He needs to base his editing on RS and that is the issue here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Just clarifying that you didn't get the notification because you've commented, you received a notification because since that comment a discussion you are involved in was added to the scope of the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Let me know if you object but it seems to cover very similar ground and I was already talking to Clevermoss about it before you commented [6] (don't want it to seem personal, you know I respect the heck out of you). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
It's quite similar in scope; I agree that this sort of clarification would be helpful in the general sense, and listing more discussions where this occurs is more likely to get some sort of clarification one way or the other. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you missed something

I moved my comment *back* to where Headbomb had moved it from.

I also disagree on how appropriate the hatting was, given the unproductive nature of the hatted remarks. Maybe you can explain that to me . At your leisure. For now, it is 40 degrees here and I have had endless edit conflicts just getting that much in, so I am wandering off to stand under the garden hose. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

When you made this comment on RSN, you disconnected a thread of comments (beginning with Moxy's comment) from the root message that they were responding to. This is not in line with WP:TPO, as it deprives them of the original context and also breaks formatting.
If you intended to reply to this comment, you could start a new indented line below the others in the thread, as is typical in threaded discussion. If you intended to simply insert a top-line discussion item, then you could also insert it below, but without an indent.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification request closed

The Noleander clarification request, in which you may have been involved, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's principle 9, which states:

Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

Among the participating Arbitrators, there was a rough consensus that this principle remains true with current policies and guidelines and that there is not an exemption from this principle for asserting that an editor has a conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Wing-T (American football)

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Wing-T".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What in the?

[7] Am I missing something or will this editor never get it? Doug Weller talk 07:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I am. They rushed to get EC, then edited in the topic area. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Uh huh, see above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

topic ban

Seems like a mildly unfair ban. I fully understand the rules, and please see the link I posted to the talk page of nableezy if that's what you're referring to. I would appeal if I had wanted to. I think its pretty clear to anyone who reads my full statement that I understand the rules, specifically after a clarification was made which was not readily understandable previously. No hard feelings though :) JoeJShmo💌 02:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is fair; you were put on notice by ScottishFinnishRadish that future violations of the ECR would be met with sanctions, you still continued to violate it after admins clarified the scope of what was acceptable and advised you to edit in other areas. The only restriction that this ban imposes that is not imposed by the extended-confirmed restriction is that you are no longer permitted to make requested edits to talk pages in the Arab-Israeli conflict area until such a time that you are extended-confirmed. I think that giving you clearer guidance on this is a way to prevent future violations of the ECR, until such a time that the ECR no longer applies to you by virtue of you being extended-confirmed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
for the record, it hadn't been clarified at all, there was actually a discussion going on about it at village pump. I had not been informed by SFR that common practice was to treat even explanatory responses as violations until after this Arb discussion, and if he had insinuated it somewhere I didn't pick up on that. I also didn't know that we fall back on policy in the case of doubt in a commonly accepted exception, and even if I had, I didn't realize the edit request exception was not actually laid out in policy. In light of all the above, I would posit that I'm much more aware of the exact rules now, and a ban is, as I said, mildly unfair. Thinking about it more though, it's alot to follow, and I could've made all this clearer in my statement, so I don't blame you for banning me. JoeJShmo💌 02:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
This topic ban should have been longer term, so they could demonstrate that they would not be disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
My two cents- Considering the ban was intended, and justified by RTH, because of a concern in understanding the rules of EC, it would be very arbitrary to decide to give a ban when that concern no longer exists. New justification would have to be provided for a concern in disruptive editing. JoeJShmo💌 09:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Uh huh, it lasted all of a few minutes/edits to reach 500 and then promptly began to edit the topic area in a very POVish manner. Since a lot of these edits were gained as a result of arguing about why ARBECR shouldn't apply, I think a counter reset would be good. Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
What you call arguing, I actually took as learning. And your characterization of my edits as POVish is subjective; I believe they were fair and good edits, most of which will probably be put back in place after a discussion. However, I do think that in the future for the sake of saving time I will open a discussion first, as I'm learning that even the most obviously warranted edits will be immediately reverted if it is not in favor of a certain POV. JoeJShmo💌 10:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier At least. Something needs to be done and I don't understand how they could have not been clear after all the discussion. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey Doug. Would you mind pointing out what you believe I am unclear on that has already been discussed? Vague statements are hard for me to respond to. JoeJShmo💌 11:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I have topic banned JoeJShmo for 6 months and 1000 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
And I think that topic ban is reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Helping to disentangle interpolated comments

 Courtesy link: Template:Interpolated comment
 Courtesy link: Template:uw-middlepost

Hi, Red-tailed hawk. I noticed you raising the issue here about talk page comments placed in the middle of other editors' comments, making it hard to follow who said what and replied what to whom; so thanks for that. I know you'll understand what I'm talking about, when I say that I sometimes try to unscramble such bollixed up comments, and it's a tedious and thankless business. But not doing it can be worse, and lead to misunderstandings. Anyway, I finally got tired of how tedious it was, and created template {{interpolated comment}} to help me address the "fix-it" part of the issue, for certain types of such bollixed comments. (There is also {{uw-middlepost}}, if you want to add something to a user's Talk page about it.)

There are various ways to try to deal with interpolated comments, including removing them (but that may piss off the person who added them) or trying to regroup them and put them all together in one place (sometimes possible, but really tricky, and error-prone, and also subject to getting an edit conflict, and then you have to start all over again), and finally, you can just leave the interpolated parts in there, but highlight or set them off in some way that makes it absolutely clear who said what. This template is based on this last approach: it helps you highlight the interpolated bits, so they stand out as not part of the original editor's comment, and identifies who wrote what. If that approach might work for you some of the time, you might want to have a look at it.

The template is not the simplest one in the world (not the hardest, either) and takes only one of many possible approaches, but if you have chosen the "leave-it-in-place-and-identify" approach, it will make the really tedious part a little bit easier. Have a look and see what you think; I hope it might be helpful to you. Would love to hear your thoughts, any ideas you might have about how to make it better, and easier to use. Please address template-specific comments, bugs, enhancement requests to Template talk:Interpolated comments (ditto for {{uw-middlepost}}), but I'd love to hear your general impressions, questions, or feedback either here or at my Talk page. Thanks once again for being willing to take on the tricky business of dealing with interpolated comments; they are no fun, that's for sure. Mathglot (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

MfD

I have replied to your query. I hope you will understand the context now. Nickps refuses to show me any "unsourced" negative information in the draft article. No one does. Why is that so hard to do? Maybe because I have sourced everything very carefully, so they wikilawyer instead?

Maybe for the same reason Trump lost a lawsuit that was ONLY about the pee tape rumor, the subject of my draft article? Another lawsuit[8][9] ONLY about that rumor was also lost by the litigant. In that last case, Judge Cooper even showed that the litigant had changed his story to Mueller and likely lied to Mueller. First he described to Mueller how he told Cohen he had "stopped" the salacious tapes of Trump with prostitutes. Then he changed his story later and told Mueller the tapes were "fake". Judge Cooper showed that the claim they were "fake" was not a true statement. That was a new story, with no evidence. The litigant had always treated them as real, just as Cohen and Trump had done.

BTW, this rumor is not about the 2016 Steele dossier allegation per se. It's about the same story, but from when it started in 2013, and Cohen's 2019 testimony that he, Trump, and David Pecker knew about it in late 2013 or early 2014 and tried to suppress the rumor and find the tapes. That effort continued, with the help of others close to Trump and Cohen for several years before the Steele dossier was a twinkle in Hillary Clinton's eye. Neither Steele nor his sources invented that rumor. They only retold it. That really pissed off Trump, because until the dossier was published on January 10, 2017, the public did not know of what was described as an "open secret" in Moscow. That is very well "sourced" negative information, IOW not a BLP violation when properly attributed.

There are several things to keep in mind: (1) We do not know for sure if the pee tape exists; (2) We know that the pee tape rumor is old, very real, was known by "many" in a closed group around Trump, and did not start with Steele and his dossier; (3) James Comey and a number of others believe it's quite possible the pee tape does exist, and (4) that some RS allege it may be part of the reason Trump has never criticized Putin. That is all sourced in the draft article.

As for me, I don't know. I just know that very GNG notable part of the "sum of all human knowledge" is not covered here, it easily passes GNG, and there are myriad very RS about it. My draft article is not yet ready for mainspace. It needs more work, especially to make it more NPOV compliant with more attribution from the sources. It's all properly sourced. I also do not want it publicized, and the MfD is very counterproductive in that regard. And last but not least, there are many enemies of the subject who do not want it told at Wikipedia. That's unwikipedian behavior. We are supposed to document what RS say and not oppose content because we "don't like it".

If there are BLP violations in the draft article, I want to fix them, but no one will provide an example. We do not MfD or AfD drafts or articles because a BLP violation exists somewhere in it. We follow WP:PRESERVE (a policy) and fix the violation. These people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

See my request at Please provide evidence of BLP violations. Someone needs to get Nickps to provide evidence or withdraw his accusation, close the ANI thread, as it has devolved into a kangaroo court with piling on (some likely from WPO, where they were discussing it today), and apologize. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The MfD has been closed as "no consensus". That's a good solution. Now that kangaroo court at ANI needs to be closed and Nickps trouted and warned not to abuse ANI and to provide evidence for his accusations. That is very uncivil behavior. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Revisit

I've just caught up on the Uyghur genocide move, which I was surprised by, and which I also now think was quite poorly reasoned. I'm quite interested to hear your take on what happened there and where the disconnect lies here between the sources and the community. My thoughts can be seen here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI closure

The ANI has been closed, but that doesn't stop the personal attacks immediately afterwards. I have mentioned the possibility for civil discussion here: User talk:Valjean/Rumor#Closures at two drama boards. There I would be allowed to explain, unlike in an ANI or MfD kangaroo court where I am not allowed to defend myself against personal attacks or present evidence, as that's considered bludgeoning.

We need to discuss this where there can be an open exchange of ideas in a civil manner. Editors obviously disagree about the interpretation of certain PAG. If discussions there don't resolve anything, then discussions on policy and guideline pages may need to occur, but all of this is disruptive to my work, with the promised help from Tryptofish, to make the draft more compliant for mainspace. It's not ready yet, and we should be allowed to work in peace without attacks, harassment, and disruption.

After repeated attempts in the MfD to get someone to provide evidence of any BLP violations in the draft article, I finally got this honest answer:

"Since Valjean wanted to know what the BLP violations were, I will try to answer, knowing that my answer will not resolve the controversy, and will not answer Valjean's question of how to resolve the BLP violations. There are no specific BLP violations in the draft or sandbox or whatever it is, so that the problem cannot be dealt with by editing. The problem is that the page in question is an entirely negative page about a living person..."[10]

"There are no specific BLP violations in the draft..." That's a stunning admission, after all the accusations and abuses of MfD and ANI. No wonder no one would respond to my requests for evidence. They just labeled my requests "bludgeoning" because they just DONTLIKEIT, so they wikilawyer instead, and now they are continuing the attacks. This borders on harassment to prevent me from doing what is officially allowed in "personal user namespace". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Is there a specific request you have regarding this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if they escalate this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Email

Hey, could I send an email to you regarding the WP: AE? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is in reference to a report regarding my behavior seen here. As mentioned there: I'm also requesting that the closing admin go through every edit cited before coming to a AE decision.
I'm also willing to explain through public/private any of the cited edits that were seen as a violation of Wikipedia guidelines if need be. (Or any others.)
I also believe that this was a retaliatory action. But I'm uncertain what I can state in either private or public respondence to defend myself. KlayCax (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I will take a read through all of the diffs. However, please do not email me about this; if there is anything I have a question about, I will ask it in public, and I think it's best to have everything fully in the public view. If there are circumstances that require private information to process fully, you should email the arbitration committee to explain them; individual admins really can't take action on the basis of private evidence unless they are also functionaries. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Protection of Spanish Navy

It doesn't matter, but the account asking for protection was a sock. You had no way of knowing. I hate socks! Doug Weller talk 13:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ARCA case

Hi RTH, My only contribution to that AE case was to ask a participant for clarification. I didn't even state an opinion on it. So I don't know why you include me in "users involved or directly affected" at ARCA and ask you to please remove me. Incidentally, I'm an admin but didn't put my question in the admin section because I edit in ARBPIA and take "involved" seriously. Thanks. Zerotalk 09:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Because there wasn't really any guidance regarding how to actually send an AE thread over to ArbCom, I've included everyone who has contributed to the prior AE discussion, and also tried to include everyone whose behavior was directly mentioned. I anticipate that the ArbCom will probably narrow the list down before proceeding.
If you'd like to join the discussion about a new template for referring over AE cases to ArbCom, which would have guidance on what to include/not include going forward, there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Template for referrals from AE that may be of interest to you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:E. Michael Jones

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "E. Michael Jones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 04:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Red-tailed hawk,
I was reading this draft as I saw it was nearing CSD G13 status and I was interested in the subject and noticed that it had previously been the subject in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Michael Jones and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:E. Michael Jones, and even a Deletion review, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_April_8. It looked like an interesting article though so I'm hoping you can get back to it and submit it to AFC for review (since it was deleted in an AFD). Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I am going to request it restored. The big problems I am facing are:
  1. Some sources describe Culture Wars as merely a continuation of the first magazine, whereas others describe it as a second magazine;
  2. I want to make sure I'm reading Graff correctly with respect to the final sentence of the lead; and
  3. Generally it's a bit hard to write the section on the writings without getting full back into the sources, so I'll need to block out a day or so.
I was planning to submit to AfC anyway, and particularly so here because it's a BLP and I can be prone to dropping fragments of sentences etc. when my editing is disjointed over several sessions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk/Archive_9&oldid=1244564017"