User talk:Red-tailed hawk
This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
WikiCup 2024 March newsletter edit
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.
The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:
- Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
- Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
- AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
- Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
- MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
- Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews
In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.
Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
A goat for you! edit
No idea if you remember me or not from a few years ago with the Uyghur genocide debacle, but I was thrilled to finally log back in after a long time to see that you're an admin now! Congrats! Or, my sincerest condolences. Depending on your point of view. 😂 Seems appropriate to share a goat for a G.O.A.T. Hope all is well! Time for me to crawl back under my rock now.
OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 March 2024 edit
- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
Apollo Global Management Edit edit
Hi Red-tailed hawk,
Thanks for your question about my edit request at Talk: Apollo Global Management#Edit to lead sentence. I responded a while ago, but forgot to ping you, so you may have missed it. I clarified my reasoning, so I hope you will consider editing the Apollo Global Management page. Thank you, Chamanch123 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to ANI discussion edit
Hi Red-tailed hawk, could you have a look at WP:AN/I#UA0Volodymyr continuing to disregard topic ban? Since you are the unblocking admin, and the original blocking admin HJ Mitchell would like an opinion from you there. Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I edit
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? edit
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 edit
Two years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hullo, rather odd question edit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Your message on my talk page edit
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)
Admin-shopping edit
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)