FortunateSons

Re: Stadionverbot Decision

See also: Stadionverbot Decision

Do you also want me to take a look at the DYK for the Stadionverbot Decision? If you want a different reviewer, that's ok. Just let me know. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You were a great reviewer, no objection from me. It is exclusively based on German sources, just as a fair warning, but if you are ok with that, I would appreciate a second review as well! FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Note, you have external links in the see also section. You'll either want to move those to the bottom in an external link section or format them into full citations for a further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, will do. FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a stray "A" at the end of the "Impact" section. Also headings are generally lowercase on en, such as "Legal proceedings", not "Legal Proceedings". Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please use bullets (also known as the asterisk) before each external link. Like this:

• Link1
• Link2

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Added them FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Try to add page numbers to the references if you are able. It's not required, but it allows reviewers to check your work. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I will do that tomorrow insofar as possible, thanks! I’ll have to check where it’s still missing, as I usually linked directly to the section (usually delineated through a section number (Rn.)).FortunateSons (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not required. Maybe something to think about in future hooks. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks; particularly for the hooks, it might be worth the effort to get my hands on a physical copy of the source. FortunateSons (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m concerned about the title, as it’s still at the “old” one, that is slightly different than the new version. Can I just move it, or would that be an issue for the dyk? FortunateSons (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want and let others deal with any issues. I wouldn't worry too much about it. The redirect from the DYK should work fine after the move. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you find the current hooks for Stadionverbot Decision interesting? It may not be as interesting for non-specialists. Perhaps consider adding more hooks that people outside of the legal profession can appreciate. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I do, but I’m a studying law, so that counts for nothing. I think the first one is the easiest for a layman to appreciate, based on the “speed” of the decisions.

The “best hook” would probably be something along the lines of “that a court decision about a 16-year-old’s ban from football stadiums may impact the legal obligations of social media companies in Germany” (cited to something like this, which is a less than great source and the Spiegel article for the age/alternatively the LTO article), but this sort of hook is often dangerously close to OR or weasel words, with everything being basically speculative in regards to the actual practical impact (or too in-depth for a hook). Would that be more interesting? FortunateSons (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but if there’s a way for you to explain why the hooks are interesting in the hook, that’s something to consider. I will give what you say some thought and come back to it later. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid that this would be effectively impossible within that length restriction. Would linking to Drittwirkung be helpful? The article is short, but might explain some of the issue decently well that would be a coatrack here. FortunateSons (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of “…that the German Federal Constitutional Court has decided that some powerful private companies cannot exclude customers for arbitrary reasons?” cited to the same source as the second hook? Is that more interesting? FortunateSons (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm taking a look now. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. In case we want a definition (and to not crowd the DYK), I would use the one from Towfigh, which is „Dies lässt indes nicht den Schluss zu, dass Grundrechte im Privatrecht bedeutungslos sind. Mit seiner Lüth-Entscheidung ($ 3 Rn. 31 ff.) legte das BVerfG vielmehr schon 1958 den Grundstein für die Figur der sog. mittelbaren Drittwirkung der Grundrechte. Die Grundrechte haben demzufolge maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die Auslegung und Anwendung einfachgesetzlicher Rechtsnormen (Ausstrahlungswirkung der Grundrechte, $ 1 Rn.41). Vor allem die jüngere Rechtsprechung des BVerfG - mit den Entscheidungen zu Fraport, Bierdosen-Flashmob und Stadionverbot - weitet die mittelbare Drittwirkung der Grundrechte erheblich aus. Vereinzelt wird daher gar von einer Rechtsprechungsänderung hin zu einer unmittelbaren Drittwirkung der Grundrechte gesprochen. Das BVerfG formuliert: Je nach Gewährleistungsinhalt und Fallgestaltung kann die mittelbare Grundrechtsbindung Privater einer Grundrechtsbindung des Staates vielmehr nahe oder auch gleich kommen.“ (p. 54 f.) (Google translate: However, this does not lead to the conclusion that fundamental rights are meaningless in private law. In fact, with its Lüth decision (§ 3 Rn. 31 ff.) the Federal Constitutional Court laid the foundation for the concept of the so-called indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights as early as 1958. Fundamental rights therefore have a significant influence on the interpretation and application of ordinary legal norms (radiation effect of fundamental rights, § 1 Rn.41). In particular, the more recent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court - with the decisions on Fraport, beer can flash mobs and stadium bans - significantly expands the indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights. In some cases, there is even talk of a change in case law towards a direct third-party effect of fundamental rights. The Federal Constitutional Court states: Depending on the content of the guarantee and the circumstances of the case, the indirect fundamental rights obligation of private individuals can be close to or even the same as the fundamental rights obligation of the state. FortunateSons (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Made the changes. I’m not sure about the second one, does that sound better in English? FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi FortunateSons. :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I’m pretty busy right now, but I’ll get to it as soon as I can! FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stadionverbot Decision

Hello! Your submission of Stadionverbot Decision at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I’m currently very busy, but will try my best to get to it asap! :) FortunateSons (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, and thank you both for taking over. I’m happy with the new hook, so no objections FortunateSons (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I’m slightly confused about what I was pinged for yesterday? Is any action from me required? FortunateSons (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Diet culture

On 8 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Diet culture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both scholars and activists believe that diet culture is often intertwined with racism and other forms of prejudice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diet culture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Diet culture), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Good job! Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help! FortunateSons (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Stadium ban decision

On 1 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stadium ban decision, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a German court's decision involving football stadiums may preclude Facebook from arbitrarily banning users? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stadionverbot Decision. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stadium ban decision), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed party at PIA5

Hello, I'm notifying you that I have listed your name at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#Seven proposed parties as being among the most active editors in Palestine/Israel noticeboard disputes, and I have proposed that you participate as a party to the case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification! I have been less than active over the last few months, so either a ping or a response here would be quite appreciated if there is content to respond to; would that be possible? FortunateSons (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Recht auf Vergessen-Decisions

Hello, FortunateSons. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Recht auf Vergessen-Decisions, 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) 15:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about your self-declared Conflict of Interest in Gaza genocide article

Hello.

You made an edit request in this article, with the {{edit COI}} template [1].

I am confused since you also made several changes into this article, including this change in the lead [2]. Middle East Scholar Barometer mentioned in the now-removed content seems to be from University of Maryland, College Park.[3].

Your own use page notes: Anyone is free to assume that I have a conflict of interest with regards to any european high school, college, university, research institution, scholarship network and anything directly or indirectly affiliated with them. This especially applies to institutions teaching law, business, politics and medicine. Does this not extend to US universities?

Please see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. Do not provide any personal information per WP:AVOIDOUTING. But I was wondering if you need to bring this issue to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard per WP:COICOIN? Thanks. Bogazicili (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for your question. No, this does not apply to other countries. It’s just that I have “a COI in any sense but policy” for about 10 of the European institutions (+people), but I don’t want to tell which, so this was the compromise. I think that in case of doubt, a discussion (such as this one :)) is a nicer remedy than someone not knowing and thereby getting myself/them into a bad situation.

While being a student or a member of a scholarship network isn’t a technically a COI, the same often does not apply to partaking in volunteer or paid work at those. As I don’t want to out myself by creating a list that can be matched to my LinkedIn, I just picked a broad disclosure. Based on a reasonable half-year cooldown window, I currently do not have a COI to anything outside of Germany within the scope of the article.

Regarding to specific edit: I have a COI regarding one of the people cited (arguably two, but that reading would go significantly further than current policy interpretation does), so that requires an actual policy-level COI disclosure. It does not apply to the article as a whole, or even the majority of people cited in my text.

Don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions :) FortunateSons (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili are you still concerned, or is the issue resolved for you? :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced in COI. I basically asked if you need to bring it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and you said no. Bogazicili (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, alright, thanks. Please don’t hesitate to ask if there are any further concerns! FortunateSons (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello FortunateSons, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)