User talk:Red-tailed hawk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello Red-tailed hawk,

New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022


  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.


Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello Red-tailed hawk,

New Page Review queue December 2022

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Concern regarding Draft:School of Cork[edit]

Information icon Hello, Red-tailed hawk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:School of Cork, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023[edit]

Revert on Minor-attracted person[edit]

Hi there, @Red-tailed hawk. I'm here to tell that I have reverted your redirect on the page Minor-attracted person (which directed it to a section of the Chronophilia page). Upon seeing the page's history, I have seen that you blanked it under the justification "WP:BLAR. If anywhere on the encyclopedia, there, but I don't think this has improved since the last time this went to AfD". My decision was based on the same policy as you cited, which states that "If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history."

The reason for the revert are two:

a) The content of that page is too controversial for it to be (effectivelly) removed by a monocratic decision coming from a single user (even if he is an admin). Consensus is needed here, as well as a previous discussion about the page before any major decision is made.

b) The content of the page now is substantially different from what it was before November 2021. Since you are an admin, I assume you will be able to see how the prevous page was (it was a little dab with three paragraphs, as opposed to the current article that is almost 25k bytes long). If you can't, use the Wayback Machine, there is an archive of March 2021 there.

If you feel strongly about that article, I really recommend that you take it to AFD. As WP:BLAR says, "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."" You would make a good nom, since you were here in the 2021's discussion. 🔥 22spears 🔥 02:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all due respect, the vast majority of the literature cited in that article are nothing short of totally and utterly WP:FRINGE. The notion that we should be citing critical criminology literature whose main thrust is that Pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation just as being gay is, as you introduced to the article in this edit to the draft that was later incorporated into the live article here, is emblematic of the deep, deep problems with the article's sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there. I almost missed your reply because you didn't @ me, no notification was emitted. I will @ you here just to be sure that you don't miss this reply. @Red-tailed hawk.
"the vast majority of the literature cited in that article are nothing short of totally and utterly WP:FRINGE."
At least 90% of the sources being currrently used in that article were either published on peer-reviewed journals or are WP:GREL sources (AFP, Newsweek, etc). You can check the source eval in the talk page, or consult the source list on the body of the article if you want to see the most recent sources as well. Another detail is that most of those academic sources were also published by academic journals that are reputable among scientific fields relating to child sexual abuse, such as Archives of Sexual Behavior and Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. Also, those journals are specialized on this topic, which makes them more reliable for an article like this.
Besides, as far as I understand, it is not up to us Wikipedians to decide what is fringe and what is not, especially when reliable sources do not say that the use of this term is fringe but instead treat it as just another term to refer to people who have chronophilias relating to minors. If reliable sources say X and we say Y, odds are we are the science deniers, which is fine, we all disagree with the experts in one issue or another, but for the purposes of Wikipedia we should place the most reliable sources first. I used to think that this term was WP:Fringe as well, but I changed my mind after researching it on Google Scholar and other search engines. I even tried to find sources that said that this term was fringe, but I found nothing except for TERF and alternative media blogs (such as 4W, the Post Millenial, some creationist websites, etc), this is why this article doesn't give prominence to the idea that MAP is a term that was made to legalize child rape or anything like that.
"The notion that we should be citing critical criminology literature whose main thrust is that Pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation just as being gay is, as you introduced to the article in this edit to the draft that was later incorporated into the live article here, is emblematic of the deep, deep problems with the article's sourcing"
This source was used only once in the article, and it's being used to support another source (the research by Sara Jahnke). We could remove that source right now and the content of the article would remain the exact same thing, that's how insignificant it is.
I also don't like Critical Criminology, though for different reasons, which is why I barely used it in the article. The idea that pedophilia is a sexual orientation is fringe for sure, and I have seen reliable source criticizing Michael Seto for saying that pedophilia was an age-based form of sexual orientation, but we did not use that source to make that statement. 🔥 22spears 🔥 04:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Economics of taxation in the United States".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Lever" article[edit]

Hi, I see that you have redirected the article on The Lever. Did you look at the talk page for this article before redirecting? I clarified the sources for the article on that page. I believe that the article was well-sourced. Can you please explain your thinking on the redirect? Thank you. Dorje108 (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I looked at the talk page and sources. First-person interviews are non-independent sources, and do not contribute towards WP:SIRS. Moreover, WP:INHERITORG explicitly notes that An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it, and coverage merely of an employee of an organization isn't actually coverage of that organization. With respect to the Izzy Award, it appears to be a minor award by a small private college in upstate New York; it's not the sort of thing like a Canadian National Newspaper Award or a Pulitzer prize that would make an earner notable under WP:ANYBIO#1, much less make a company notable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for the prompt response. I am really trying to understand, so I have some follow-up questions.
  • Regarding the Izzy Award, it seems to me the criteria is should be "is this a reliable secondary source?" So in your view, is the institution granting the award a reliable source? Granted it is not a Pulitzer Prize, but the Roy H. Park School of Communications (the institution that grants the award) "has been named a top school for film, journalism, media, and entertainment by Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The Princeton Review and more." (per the Wikipedia page) So clearly this institution has a good reputation within its field.
  • Regarding "First-person interviews are non-independent sources..." - are you referring to the multiple instances when reporters from The Lever are interviewed by other news outlets? In these cases, the reporters are discussing their reporting for The Lever. That seems significant to me. Am I missing something here?
Thanks you for helping me to understand this process. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect to your first bullet point, this article is a Press Release from IC that contains a listing of winners of the awards that it issues. WP:ORGSIG states explicitly that a listing of award recipients is an example of trivial coverage (i.e. not significant coverage).
With respect to your second bullet point—no, you are not missing something; first-person interviews and direct quotes from non-independent persons are not considered independent coverage because the content itself is non-independent. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article for the Izzy Award states:
The Lever is a reader-supported investigative news outlet that holds accountable the people and corporations manipulating the levers of power. Its reporting, podcasts, videos, and live events focus on politics, business and corruption — and how money shapes and distorts economic and environmental policy.
A four-part series published last year by Andrew Perez of The Lever in partnership with ProPublica, titled “Inside The Right’s Historic Billion-Dollar Dark Money Transfer,” followed the money behind the architect of the conservative supermajority in the Supreme Court, Leonard Leo. The investigation exposed Chicago businessman Barre Seid’s $1.6 billion donation to Leo’s political advocacy nonprofit in the largest known dark money transfer in history.
The judges commented: “No news outlet is as thorough and relentless as The Lever in exposing the corrupting influence of corporate power on government and both major parties. From dark money influence on the Supreme Court to Medicare privatization to the dangers of deregulation to other topics, The Lever‘s investigative team is on the corruption beat day after day. Led by 2015 Izzy Award winner David Sirota, The Lever is nonpartisan and subscriber funded, just like I.F. Stone’s Weekly.”
This seems to be notable praise from a reliable source. I find it hard to imagine how this could be considered trivial?
Regarding the second point, I do not understand the term "non-independent persons." Can you give an example here? Thank you. Dorje108 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point with the Izzy Award is that it is a press release and is also coverage that is excluded from meeting WP:SIRS under the text of WP:ORGSIG.
Non-independent persons, in line with WP:ORGIND, are people who are not unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject. Some examples of people who are related to a company may include an owner of a company, a director or officer of a company, an employee of a company, a sufficiently close family member of any of the aforementioned classes of people, et cetera; I can't give an exhaustive list, but generally people who work for a firm can't actually be the ones whose writings make a firm warrant an article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up. Much appreciated. I need to digest these points. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Red-tailed hawk,
I still have questions from yesterday's discussion, however for today I would like to focus on notability.
The guidelines on notability for "web content" (WP:WEB) state:
"When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."WP:INHERENTWEB
Regarding The Lever, I have found additional citations that help to demonstrate that The Lever meets this criteria.
The new citations (tweets and a press release from members of Congress) are:
The above statements demonstrate that The Lever reporting is deemed notable by multiple members of Congress, from California to Pennsylvania. And that this reporting is influencing their decision-making.
Also, as shown here, The Lever's reporting has been cited repeatedly in news outlets such as the New York Times, The Guardian, HuffPost, and other outlets. This demonstrates ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization. WP:ORG
In addition, reporters from The Lever have appeared on multiple platforms to discuss the stories that they are reporting on. These platforms include:
This also demonstrates ongoing media coverage. And that The Lever reporting is influencing the news coverage of other news outlets. (This is indeed the stated goal of The Lever.)
Clearly, all of the above references show that The Lever is having significant and demonstrable effects on culture and society. Do you agree with this? - Dorje108 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of this is WP:SIRS—particularly so for the tweets and press releases. I don't really think that there is much more to say. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't see ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization? Dorje108 (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. This was a WP:BLAR, so you are free to simply undo it, but I will likely take this to AfD if you do. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please be more specific? I really want to understand your concerns as precisely as possible, so that I can try to address them.
This is why I am asking about "ongoing media coverage?" Because ongoing media coverage counts as "significant coverage."
So regarding the media coverage. Do you doubt that it is ongoing (because I can provide more examples)? Or do you think this coverage is not reliable? Thank you for helping with this. Dorje108 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Ongoing media coverage" is not the same as "significant coverage." If a source does not address The Lever directly and in detail, it is not significant coverage. I personally don't see any sources that pass WP:SIRS. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I was looking at the third bullet point here: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_substantial_coverage. "Ongoing media coverage" is listed as an example of "significant." It is not clear precisely what that means though. Dorje108 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was the second bullet point in the link above. Dorje108 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Francis Wheaton[edit]

Hi there. I refer to your question here: [1]. If you'd like an answer to your question, please have a look at MOS:SUICIDE. The term "committed suicide" isn't explicitly banned on wikipedia, though it is noted many people discourage its use as it can be considered stigmatising, and many neutral alternative wordings are suggested. If you'd like to know more about why "committed suicide" is problematic, I recommend this external source: [2]. I'm not going to contest your reversion as I'm not looking for ongoing disputes, though if you would consider doing so obviously I'd appreciate it. In any case, have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will point you to the relevant RfC, where the closer wrote I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found and explicitly notes that a minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic. The phrase "committed suicide" is plain English, and I see no need to change it to alternative constructions in that article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for making me aware of the RfC, and your viewpoint. I'm immediately reminded of several other terms that were considered "plain English" for decades, that are now considered too inappropriate to use; I'm old enough to remember what used to be the plain English term for people with Cerebral palsy, for instance. But I understand I'll likely have to wait sometime before "committed suicide" also becomes as widely unacceptable as I wish it was now. Best wishes. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023[edit]

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:CT55555 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Red-tailed hawk. They started their article creation activities with Uyghur genocide in 2019. Consider that! A genocide was occurring and wikipedia did not have an article about it. Thanks to RTH, about 2,000 people a day are better informed. RTH has since continued to create articles about vital social issues (link) and has a propensity to write longer, well-crafted and detailed articles. About a third are A/B/C class. I had the good fortune to be collaborating with RTH on creating Igor Mangushev. They were exceptionally cooperative and we collaboratively built an article from about 4kb to about 15kb in about 48 hours. I frequently see RTH making positive suggestions as a copyright clerk at AFD, and improving articles started by others. As the barnstars at User:Red-tailed_hawk indicate, I am not alone in noticing a pattern of diplomacy, kindness, helpful editing and making difficult closes. This nomination was seconded by theleekycauldron who agreed that RTH is a fantastic editor, utterly reasonable, methodical and a pleasure to work with.

. You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Red-tailed hawk in CP (41084).jpg
Red-tailed hawk
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning June 4, 2023
Red-tailed hawk is reasonable, methodical and a pleasure to work with. RTH continues to create detailed articles about vital social issues with about a third achieving A/B/C class. RTH is exceptionally cooperative and collaborative, making positive contributions as a AFD copyright clerk. Displays diplomacy, kindness and helpful editing .
Recognized for
being easy to work with
Notable work(s)
Started article creation activities with Uyghur genocide in 2019
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  19:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Way to go! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face-smile.svg Thank you!Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for The Messenger (website)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg

On 3 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Messenger (website), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the editorial staff of online news startup The Messenger includes former editors-in-chief of Gizmodo, Entertainment Weekly, People, and Self? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Messenger (website). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Messenger (website)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023[edit]