User talk:Hawkeye7

Archives:

2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024 · 2025
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

The Signpost: 29 January 2026

[edit]

January–February 2026 NPP drive - Phase 2

[edit]
NPP unreviewed article statistics as of February 02, 2026

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2026-06

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Special Engineer Detachment has passed

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Special Engineer Detachment has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA award Charles Thau

[edit]

A Barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Good Article Barnstar
I wanted to sincerely thank you for your rigorous and helpful review of Charles Thau. Your patience with the offline verification and image provenance was invaluable. This history means a great deal to my family, and I appreciate you helping me get it right. Milwaukee911 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2026-07

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for James I. Hopkins Jr.

[edit]

On 10 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James I. Hopkins Jr., which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that James I. Hopkins Jr., who signed the order to bomb Hiroshima, mysteriously disappeared without a trace? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, James I. Hopkins Jr.), 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 nominate it.

Hook update
Your hook reached 37,318 views (1,554.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2026 – nice work!
GalliumBot (talkcontribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2026

[edit]




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 08:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:James I. Hopkins Jr.gif

[edit]
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:James I. Hopkins Jr.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the aforementioned article and made a few revisions, but I cannot do a formal review at the moment due to my ongoing examinations. I will, however, fix any changes if necessary. Good luck with your nomination. MSincccc (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Queue 4

[edit]

You just deleted the queue; as the reviewer, I don't think you're supposed to mess around with it. Also, the secondary source says "Van Vleck credits her with key work on the quantum mechanics of magnetism", which was early work. I have no objection to restoring the thesis part, but my information was correct and it's best to notify me. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I should not have edited it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. I've made the same mistake before. Now, how do you want to word it? Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have is that the hook and the article are now out of step. The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other. (WP:DYKHOOKCITE) The Conversation source (fn 1) says "Frank’s thesis, partially published in Physical Review in 1932, focused on the element samarium. It showed quantum mechanical corrections were needed to explain the experimental data and contains a plot that appears in Van Vleck’s Nobel lecture (fn 6), labelled 'V.V. & F'." The Nobel Prize speech does not cite Frank's thesis but a 1929 paper, Van Vleck, J. H.; Frank, A. (1 December 1929). "The Effect of Second Order Zeeman Terms on Magnetic Susceptibilities in the Rare Earth and Iron Groups". Physical Review. 34: 1494–1496. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.34.1494.. I know from personal experience that supervisors often publish material from their graduate students under their own name, but at least van Vleck read it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confused. I added back in the wording you wanted. Are you saying it should be removed again? Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it now matches the article. The use of "cited" is a bit colloquial here but I think it is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What would you change it to ("cited") if you had a preference? Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. I am not good at finding better words. Referenced? Included research from? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah River Plant article

[edit]

This sentence in the article appears to contain an error: "The commissioners learned that DuPont was recommending the acquisition of 240,000 acres (97,000 ha) instead of 2,160,000 acres (870,000 ha)." The source: Reed, et al 2002, at page 144 states: "The engineering manpower was needed as the AEC learned that Du Pont was recommending the acquisition of 240,000 acres rather than the 160,000 first projected." The 240,000 acres as the larger number is consistent with the next sentence of the article; "The additional land provided river frontage as a natural boundary, secure access to the water supply, and provide flexibility in the location of pumping stations." Other than that, B class headed up. Donner60 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Corrected. Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2026-08

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

[edit]
  • Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
    The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.
  • Crossword: Pop quiz
    Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

Help, please

[edit]

I want to be sure you're seeing [19], and I really hope you can help keep this from ending in tears. You of all people know how much respect men such as Uwikis deserve, and I don't want to see him hurt. EEng 13:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2026-09

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Relief of Douglas MacArthur has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 April 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review Bella Ramsey FAC nomination

[edit]

Hi @Hawkeye7. Apologies for contacting you out of the blue but I was wondering whether you be willing to take a look at my featured article nomination for Bella Ramsey's page? I noticed you’ve recently reviewed Robert Pattison’s FAC, and I’d really value any feedback or suggestions you had. Thanks! Crp74 (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 238, February 2026

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2026 March newsletter

[edit]

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 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) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]