User talk:Red-tailed hawk

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 [1]. --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:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

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: [2]. 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 [3] (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

• News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates

• Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

• In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

• Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna

• In the media: War and information in war and politics

• Sister projects: On editing Wikisource

• Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan

• Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

• Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos

• Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections

• Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

• Humour: A joke

• Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn

• Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps

• Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play

* 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)

I wish to be banned from Wikipedia.

Ban me, whore. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)