User talk:Rosguill/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Rosguill

Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice!
As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to
recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia.
May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity.
Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. Best regards RV (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Third Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Rosguill a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rachel Levine on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

IBM 370

No objection to the close, but wanted to bring out that there was one voter not preferring the current target (other was the nom) who had his queries answered / responded to. So this may not have been a divided decision. Jay 💬 05:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I realize now that I had read Chatul's participation immediately prior to the relist as a separate editor from the nom, which gave me a false impression that dab had more support than it did. I have amended the close to keep. signed, Rosguill talk 06:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record

Hi Rosguill and El C, hope you're doing well and happy holidays. I don't have space to comment in AE but I'd like to clarify one thing; it seems like Abrvagl brought up a talk page snippet from this discussion in their latest AE comment. I'm not sure if I have to reply to that or not, but it was part of a larger discussion about the wording of this stamp section in the article, among other things. The summary of it; I tried to find additional third party sources that supported the current wording ("seemingly depicting"), Abrvagl raised issues about the sources on talk (and apparently I find new things in AE they didn't mention on talk), they later asked me to take to RSN to which I replied if they think there are issues with the third party sources, they should take to RSN themselves. That's it. I haven't even used these sources in the article as I generally try to get consensus before adding something that I know will likely get contested based on the talk discussion.

What I don't understand is why are they bringing up a snippet from a larger discussion to AE without replying for a week now (as you can see my reply is the last comment) or taking to RSN? And they haven't even mentioned this discussion snippet in their initial report diffs, perhaps maybe just maybe because this isn't AE worthy at all?

p.s. Regarding that stamp not being registered by Universal Postal Union is also true which I show here with a source. For the record, it was just part of the discussion and my reply to Abrvagl's "online hysteria" comment, and I didn't even suggest adding it to the article, nor (again) I ever added it. I just find it problematic cherry-picking these snippets from large discussions without providing full context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, you should not be circumventing the AE board's word limit by splitting the discussion on the talk pages of reviewing admins. El_C 13:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
El C My apologies I just didn't have space to comment in AE. Should I comment in AE instead if you or Rosguill allow or it's not necessary? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, yes, at AE. I can't speak for Rosguill (maybe they don't mind), but my position is that splitting the discussion like this comes across as you trying to be clever with the word limit, which is a bad look. If you'd like to trim your comments at AE, just add a diff of the items that were removed. El_C 13:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Understood. I just wanted to comment regarding the talk discussion snippet Abrvagl brought up. I don't think I can fit this in AE no matter how much I trim, I'm at the 500-word limit currently. I'll give it a try, maybe it works. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
A couple more hundred words would be fine. El_C 13:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirect reviewing

Since you pulled back, we are running at double the backlog (two months now). Josh and I are doing most of the reviews as of late, but combined I don't think we are doing as many as you did. I've been waiting to see if you were taking a temporary break, but it appears not. If that's the case, we are going to have to ask more people to help out with redirects. If so, I'll bring this up in the next newsletter so let me know. MB 03:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

MB, thanks for reaching out about this. To be honest, I'd taken a step back because it seemed under control. I think that now that redirects have the same backlog date as articles and neither are slipping past the end date of the backlog, there's less of a need to address redirects qua redirects and efforts can be directed to just keeping the queue as a whole in check. signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Joey Badass

Can you enhance the close statement for WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 22#2000 (Joey Badass mixtape)? Jay 💬 06:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with much of the closing statement except the argued for deletion outright part, which you may have referred to the vote by Ss112. If someone says I don't mind if this is deleted, but ..., I would not see it as outright, but either as a second choice, or conditional. Jay 💬 07:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Not quite, the "outright" part referred to the nom argument--I agree with your reading of Ss112's comment. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Kelly Younger

Hi. Saw you tagged this for notability, then noticed the claim in the lead that they are Emmy-nominated. Now, I agree with your tag, but was interested in hearing why you think the article currently doesn't establish notability. I just want to see if it's for the same reason as I had. Oh, and Happy New Year! Onel5969 TT me 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy new yearOnel5969! It looks like one of those cases of award-by-proxy, where Younger was part of a large team working on a film that collectively got nominated, but nothing that I can see points to Younger's individual notability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Bingo. That's exactly what I thought. In addition, the source used does not mention him. Onel5969 TT me 17:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2022

Redirect Ninja Master Award
For over 49,000 redirect reviews during 2022. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award

For over 2,000 article reviews during 2022. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock conditions per User:Call-me-Ishmae1

When you handed out a topic ban on "telegony" to Call-me-Ishmae1, did you mean Telegony (the lost poem) or Telegony (inheritance), or both? Preferably, add a blue link to their entry at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Unblock conditions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, I had erroneously thought that the inheritance theory was named for the poem and thus didn't specify in order to cover any overlap. I've edited the entry to specify it's for inheritance, and expect that Call-me-Ishmae1 is perfectly clear on the scope based on my discussion with them. signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Free Democratic Party (Germany) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I had requested for Autopatrolled, am i eligible for that?

Hello, Sorry to ping again, i don't think that you would give me autopatrolled. But still I'm asking for it. Am i eligible for that? If I'm eligible then please allot me, i am going to create many more articles in future. I saw that I'm also listed in list of eligible to be Autopatrolled. Please help. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I would ask that you make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled for review. Looking at your edit history briefly, your rate of article creations is high enough to merit autopatrol, but the granting admin would need to do a more thorough review for quality in order to assess if that would be appropriate. The relative newness of your account, created less than 2 months ago, is not in your favor. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I had already submitted a request there. I would do create more articles, Can you please grant me. I will be very Happy that my contribution to Wikipedia is being accepted by My Gurus (Teacher) like you on Wikipedia. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not going to review this request. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Thank You. I will wait for some Admin, if they grant or not. Still Happy. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

By the Way Tour sources

Since you said that the this revision of the By the Way Tour article needs to have sources that provide significant coverage, are the following sources okay?


Apter, Jeff (November 23, 2004). Fornication: The Red Hot Chili Peppers Story. (page 347)

Red Hot Chili Peppers, Mullen, Brendan (October 19, 2010). An Oral/Visual History by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. (page 211)

Red Hot Chili Peppers plot first U.S. dates behind 'By the Way'

The Red Mellowed Out Chili Peppers

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Live At Slane Castle (5.1/DTS)

Tattooed Love Boys (page 3)


These sources are used in the Tour section of the By the Way album article.


Additionally, I found these reviews of the Live at Slane Castle DVD:

Live at Slane Castle

Red Hot Chili Peppers at Slane Castle 2003: a festival concert to get you through the lockdown


Are any of these sources acceptable? Thank you in advance!


Chris25689 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris25689, the NYT review is definitely a good source. The Livedailynews article is less helpful for establishing notability because it was published in advance of the tour and seems PR-ish. I don't have time to chase down the book sources right now, but those would be a "maybe" for notability purposes depending on both the depth of their coverage and the extent to which the author/publisher were independent from RHCP. Tattooed Love Boys, meanwhile, seems clearly not independent as a blog by (for?) Frusciante.
For the second set of sources, the first one is user-generated, so that's not reliable, but the second one looks good. All in all, I think you're well on the way to establishing notability and are only a little bit short of making the article a shoo-in. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Fifth First Edit Day!

Hey, Rosguill. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Bukky Leo Wiki

Hi Rosguill


I have been helping Bukky Leo as a PR consultant, as you can see I have been working on his Wiki draft and submitted it several times for review, most recently I added a Guardian reference. All the references I added were notable, but I felt the Wiki was being rejected unfairly. Also Paul W told me I could subbmit notable offline references, as long as they were from notable sources, which they were via The Guardian, and Telegraph, even a chart position, but the Wiki was still getting rejected. Bukky then was contacted by someone offering to get the Wiki page verified, he definitely did not pay anyone, including me. There has been no violation of Wikipedia's policies.


In any case, I can now see this Wiki has been created, cut n pasting and editing the draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukky_Leo_(Musician)


How do we now introduce links to it, do I need to find other Wiki pages that reference Bukky now?


How do I merge the page history of the draft with the new page?


Hope you can help?


Thanks


PressgirlV PressgirlV (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

PressgirlV, as you have already been notified on your talk page, you are required to comply with our WP:PAID policy. As an employee of Bukky Leo, you are considered a paid editor by Wikipedia. There also appears to have been sockpuppetry involved in promoting this article--you are advised to come clean about any additional accounts that have edited the article on behalf of you, Leo, or any other party with a COI; failure to do so will likely result in your account being blocked and further actions taken against the recreation of articles about Leo. You also need to address your apparent conflict of interest with Carla Marie Williams on your talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill
I don't know what 'sockpuppetry' is but I am categorically not an employee of Bukky Leo. I don't have any aliases either. He was approached by someone who offered to get his page verified, but he hasn't paid anyone and they are nothing whatsoever to do with me. I have nothing to hide and nothing to 'come clean' about.
You have no reason to be suspicious, it's completely unneccessary.
For the record I have not ever received any payment from Bukky Leo or Carla Marie Williams, they are both friends who I have helped out.
Carla Marie Williams' Wiki page was already created by a former colleague at the BBC, Carla needed some help adding her discography, which I did as a favour to her. There is no conflict of interest.
In the case of Bukky Leo, he is a lovely old man, who has paid his dues and contributed greatly to Afrobeat and music overall, he was very much in need and deserving of a Wiki page. He asked me for a favour and I did it for him, I don't charge for this, he is an old man, he doesn't have much money, but he needed my help.
I am a PR consultant by trade, and I sometimes help people, I do quite a bit for people pro bono. I think of it as paying it forward. PressgirlV (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As I've already stated, and as explained in WP:COI, your personal relationships with these people are conflicts of interest. Comply with the relevant policies. Failure to do so will result in a loss of editing privileges. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello Rosguill,

Sorry to bother you, my account was blocked due to copyright infringement issues around 1 month ago and i'm not sure if this is a bug or not but my unblock request has not been reviewed and it's nearly been 2 weeks, if this is a bug, can you please review it (since you were the only one who viewed my request) or maybe put it on a waitlist for review? Here's my account's talk page.


Hopefully someone can review my request so I can continue doing my best to make Wikipedia a better place.

Thank you,

Gtgamer79 158.140.175.144 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Shoxrux Hamdamov

Hi - I confirmed all of the socks but the creator, who is stale, but I've blocked as suspected. Certainly, it should be not be in article space, but it's probably eligible for G5 - can I leave you to consider that? Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 11:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, deleted the draft as G5 following another editor moving it out of mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

AE referral to the Arbitration Committee

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad and War

Hello, dear Rosguill. Happy New Year. I wish every good thing for you in 2023. I think you would be the ideal person to review the draft page I have created < Draft:The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad and War > and wonder if you would please be willing to do so, if you aren't too busy. Thanks so much. WantingOnlyTheTruth (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi WantingOnlyTheTruth, I don't do page reviews on request. I expect your draft will be reviewed by someone else before too long. signed, Rosguill talk 05:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply and sorry for the misunderstanding. Best wishes, WantingOnlyTheTruth (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Lindakeb

Hi. Came across this editor again during NPP, with Draft:Kelly McLaughlin. Which I've obviously moved to draftspace, due to its obvious COI/UPE concerns. Then I remembered Draft:Sara Lewis, which also has obvious COI/UPE issues. Looking at the comments on their talkpage, User talk:Lindakeb, MrsSnoozyTurtle also noticed their editing habits regarding Tufts. Should this go to some admin board for looking into for COI/UPE? Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 Yes, given that the first inquiry was met with a plain denial but suspicious editing is ongoing (Sergei Mirkin also fits the pattern), a noticeboard discussion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw someone is doing paid works

Hello, Today While using my facebook, i searched for Wikipedia and was surfing over there and saw many Facebook Groups which provide Paid Wikipedia works one of them is "Md. Saidul Islam Rana", done by Facebook User Ameer Ali. I can send screenshots of that post. I had before added Akash Yadav (entrepreneur) for AfD is also claimed by Ameer Ali that he created that article in one of his Facebook post and many other articles. I Can surely provide screenshot for that also. How can we stop this. I pinged you because i thought you will help in this definitely. I am not so trained to start a sockpuppet investigation over this. You can scold me if I'm wrong. Thanks --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Akshata Prabhu also posted on that group regarding Wikipedia. Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll start a sockpuppet investigation for the various accounts working on these articles and ping you to comment there. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Check those posts here [1] and [2]. Can you check these? ---Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You, for looking into my Message. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Again.. User:Jonysin recreated Md. Saidul Islam Rana. Check pls . Misterrrrr (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you patrol redirects so fast?

Hello Rosguill! I am taking a look at how much patrols I have been doing and I saw you had done more than 3,000+ review on redirects in the past 7 days. How do you manage to do that? Do you have special bot or special method to do that, or you do it manually? Thank you very much! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Just manual, and I think you inflated my count a bit (I see 2,303 for the past 7 days on the database report). Most redirects don't take much--they're either self-evidently correct as an obvious alternate name for the target or are mentioned in the target article's text and thus can be reviewed in just a few seconds. I've been focusing on redirects for the past few days since they're currently the tail of the NPP backlog. I do add editors to the WP:RAUTO list when I come across prolific good-redirect creators, but those get checked off by DannyS712 bot III and don't count towards my total. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes it is around 2,000+, my bad. Thank you for your answer! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Previously i left a message of your talkpage about a Facebook Group where Ameer Ali Salman was running Paid Wikipedia Creation Agency, Just Now i was surfing and reached that group, I tried to Find Ameer Ali Salman but is didn't got his account. Whatever, People in that group are offering people for Paid works and Some are doing there also. How can we fix that? How can i run a SPI? If i can run a SPI, then i would never ping you and make you feel bad. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Misterrrrr, the instructions for filing a sockpuppet investigation are laid out at WP:SPI. Enabling the option to automatically strike out editors who have been blocked, which makes it much easier to identify the masters of puppets in page histories, can be done from the Gadgets tab of user preferences. signed, Rosguill talk 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay Thanks For This Information and one more thing. I'm here informing you about one more person named Umair Ahmad. He is running a Facebook page see this [3] and a website too see this [4]. I think they are from the same Team as Ameer Ali Salman. Check the Facebook page, 3 people are mentioned there who gave them work. Check ahead. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Check more here [5] and [6]. It looks like his website isn't available now. Check these. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Happy Christmas

Merry Christmas, Rosguill

or whatever else you may celebrate at this time of year.

Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia throughout the year

and may 2023 prove to be a happy and successful year for you and your family

Josey Wales Parley 20:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Again

Hey, How are you? Hope you're well.. i saw an article Nalneesh Neel, the person himself shared google knowledge graph screenshot to his Instagram Page. The creator and recent editors are sock blocked..! What we can do here? --- Misterrrrr (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the point you're making about the off-wiki activity here. There seem to be at least two different socks present in the history of the page, so in principle it would be reasonable to compare Phoenix0910's editor interactions (link), but the accounts' activity is old enough that checkusers are unlikely to be able to turn up any additional evidence. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, Sure. I understood. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

question

hi. I wanted to ask about the possibility or options of being adopted by you? I could use some input. I see that you're an admin. that could be very helpful. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sm8900, what kind of editing work were you hoping to get mentorship around? signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
well, basically, much of my current areas of activity. recently, I have been doing some substantial work on some different navboxes. also, I am trying to energize some wikiprojects which I am part of. I can also use your general input and advice on some community processes, resources, and discussions that I am involved in, every so often. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Sm8900, hm, I can't say that I have much experience working on navboxes or organizing wikiprojects--if there are other areas of work that you want guidance on I can potentially help there, but you may find it more helpful to seek out a mentor with more experience in those areas. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

SC Staaken

That editor has already removed the discussion, but just wanted to thank you for fixing that. Onel5969 TT me 02:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 opened

Hello Rosguill,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi

I found you on the adoption page and thought I'd ask if you would take me on.

I have tried with two other mentors initially.

Zippybonzo took me on but got busy and ToastGuard didn't have an opening when I went back.

I have also asked SoWhy but they didn't realise they were on the currently adopting list.

So here I am :)

If your interested you might have a look at the little I have contributed (and possibly the questions I have asked Zippybonzo on his Talk- some archived) and get an idea of where I am coming from and if I'd be of any interest. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Lukewarmbeer, what kind of editing work were you interested in getting help with? signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like a go to person to help me:
Navigate the site generally
Understand what is a reasonable position to take in certain circumstances, particularly in potentially controversial areas (see for example Beira's Place Talk). It's easy to get sucked into these things and I have found that there are sometime vested interests in places I wouldn't have even expected. I want to keep the encyclopedia perspective to the fore in talk and articles. I need more knowledge and 'professionalism' to achieve that.
Ditto with RfCs
I'd also like to improve articles. See for example my talk page on Enclosure and Inclosure I was also going to do some work on possibly something innocuous like the Algerian Green Dam to get some more structured editing experience. I started but found it more complex than I expected. I'm no IT wiz.
Citations are something I have been doing. I'm not sure why we let so much stuff be posted that people can't be bothered to support with appropriate sources. I have added quite a few but sometimes when I am researching I find that the information I find actually contradicts the existing text. I leave it now when that happens as I'm not sufficiently confident to interfere. If I start rewriting I'd like, in the early days, someone to run that sort of thing by - so I don't do more harm than good.
Vandalism and recent changes patrolling also interest me. I have done a tiny bit of that but also need guidance both practical and editorial.
That's probably covered it :) Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Lukewarmbeer, alright, I should be able to help with that. Feel free to drop me a line any time. I should generally be able to respond within a day. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I have been reading User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist
I have to say that, at least to me, it is really well written and is the sort of stuff I think I need to read. It partially explains why "we let so much stuff be posted that people can't be bothered to support with appropriate sources".
1st question.
Is it appropriate to ask the originator to provide citations, possibly offer a little help with that. Then, if there was no time and effort on their behalf, call time on the contribution rather than feel obliged to try and substantiate that contribution for them? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it depends a lot on the context of the article/contributions. There isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather there's several things to consider:
  • Is the editor even still around to engage with?
  • Is the editor new? Or alternatively, have they been made aware of our verifiability/OR/etc. policies and guidelines? Is there a pattern of behavior at play, despite warnings or other attempts to engage with them?
  • Are the contributions in question a substantial, dedicated attempt to expand an article, or was this a drive-by addition, with the editor moving on to unrelated work?
  • Are the contributions' unreferenced claims plausibly constructive? Alternatively, do they look like POV-pushing?
  • What's your engagement with the article? Are you also engaged in long-term substantial editing of the page, or did you stumble on it in passing?
In general, when there's indications that the editor is making well-intentioned edits, and is able to engage with suggestions and constructive criticism, we should be as welcoming and collaborative as possible. But there will be times when an editor will be unwilling or unable to engage with criticism, and times when the malformed edits are of such poor quality that simply reverting them is more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Where are valid proofs

Where are the sources for these changes, also you are editing informaton on enacted treatys. This information was not just added, if i cant be provided with evidence for changes im going to have to assume fraud. 174.247.208.191 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

So im very curious to of where you got your information from today, as of now of out thin air? Also i would have to assume they should be null and void if alterable 174.247.208.191 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the main sources used at Treaty of Tordesillas in the most recent edits are:
Miller, Robert; LeSage, Lisa; Escarcena, Sebastián (2011-08-01). "The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous Peoples, and Chile". Nebraska Law Review. 89 (4).
Coben, Lawrence A. (2015), "The Events that Led to the Treaty of Tordesillas", Terrae Incognitae, vol. 47, pp. 142–162, doi:10.1179/00822884.2015.1120427, ISSN 0082-2884, S2CID 130710301
Harrisse, Henry (1897), The Diplomatic History of America: Its First Chapter 1452—1493—1494, London: Stevens.
signed, Rosguill talk 00:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Show souces

Provide sources for altering longitudes and latitudes, removing kings and queens name, changing trip to it happened o it didnt, and that the cooridinates were previously correct. 174.247.208.191 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not the editor you should be discussing with. Take this up at Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas. It also seems like you may have misunderstood what content was changed in the edits, as the edit in question that you have been agitating against, Special:Diff/1137824467, does not appear to make any of the claims you're alleging here. signed, Rosguill talk 00:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Fraud and you know it 😘

Altering enacted treatys, locations, trips, longitudes and latitudes , kings and queens names without providable souces. I screen shot all of this. This was not just added. This is fraud 174.247.208.191 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This is your final warning to take this to the appropriate talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Blasting this on all social media

Do what you like 174.247.208.191 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Alternatives to asphalt

Unbelievable... you closed it as I was relisting it! (What were the chances for such an old discussion!) I was going to !vote to delete after relisting and then to say that moving without leaving a redirect for a redirect is just silly since there is no meaningful history to preserve but it doesn't matter now that you've done it, I'll undo the relisting if you haven't already. A7V2 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

ack, touche! signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Redirect Autopatrol request archiving

Hey Rosguill. I noticed that Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list hasn't had any archiving done since the very beginning of 2022. Do you mind if I archive some of the older requests and add them to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list/Old requests with the appropriate format? Just wanted to ask before I did so in case there was a reason they hadn't been archived. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, go ahead--I don't think I've done any of the archiving in the past, primarily due to laziness. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Cool, thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:S.U.C.C.E.S.S. on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 24#Template:Reference necessary ready for final close

Hi Rosguill. I used AWB to replace all of the instances of those templates listed in the RfD accordingly other than in archives and a few user pages that were not userspace drafts (lists of useful templates, and the like), so the RfD should be able to be closed now. Cheers! TartarTorte 14:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 update: Parties added, evidence phase extended

Hello Rosguill,

Three parties have been added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case. The evidence phase has been extended and will close on February 21, 2023.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sword of the Spirit on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding Fyappiy

Once again hello Rosguill. If our discussion in Talk:Fyappiy keeps on "beating around the bush" (as if it's going around in circles without end). What could be done to end the dispute? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you're focusing on the question of what to title the page, you can start a move request and follow the instructions to publicize it to relevant boards. Alternatively, if there's a specific question regarding whether a source is reliable, you can refer the question to WP:RSN. signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The discussion is mainly about the ethnic belonging of Fyappiy, not just the title (title is secondary for me). Our discussion seems not be to working out as it's been beating around the bush, so how else can this dispute be ended? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    You need to identify what the points of contention are and either present the issue to a relevant noticeboard (i.e. WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, or WP:ORN), or start an WP:RfC on the talk page. Either way, you'll be expected to provide a neutral introductory statement to the dispute, and then list your actual arguments separately in the discussion. If there are multiple disputes, I would suggest tackling them one at a time, otherwise it will be quite difficult to encourage editors to participate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I'm curious. Can you be our "judge" in the discussion? If you can't, that's okay. Anyways thanks alot once again. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I would call it closing rather than judging, but in principle if I stay uninvolved during the discussion I could choose to close it once it's concluded. It would be out of process for me to declare my intent to do so now, though. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a non-content-dispute-zone, move along signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello @Rosguill, since I am involved in this matter I would like to explain my side. Some minor information on the whatabouts of the article; the Vyappiy/Fyappiy are a society living in the territory that is in the south west of what is the Republic of Ingushetia today. Through the creation of the Ingush Republic said society got Ingushified, which obviously is a natural progress when a nation is formed. A branch of the society moved centuries prior that to the East, mainly to the region of Aukh, an area inhabited by Chechens in what is today Dagestan. It's a numerous community not only in that area but also among the Chechen diaspora in Jordan. All these people consider themselves Chechens, which is why I pointed out that the society is part of the Chechens and Ingush when I created the article. This was no issue up until the point where WikiEditor1234567123 removed the mention of Chechens in the article without seeking consensus. Now to the other issue regarding the article, the name. The society is refereed as Vyappiy in the work of Russian researchers and the Russian article was also called like that up until recently, when Muqale changed it to Fyappiy. The area the Vyappiy live in is called Vabo. Historic names for the society Vabua and Vappua. I hope I was able to clear up some questions. Thank you for trying to find a solution. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Reiner Gavriel, you said:

Could you be kind enough to provide authorative source which could back up this claim? I'm assuming you won't be able as you weren't able to provide authorative sources on Fyappiy being Chechen and Ingush society and now you're trying to tell that to Rosguill to try to deceive them as they aren't quite familiar with the subject. Claiming that Fyappins were Ingushfied is not only false but also very insulting to the Fyappiy! These claims are based on your opinion and not real facts. The dispute should have been closed right away as you weren't been able to bring up authorative source which says that "Fyappins are Chechen and Ingush society" and that they "belong to both nations equally". As been mentioned by Muqale here, the Ingush-Chechen relations aren't the best currently (herehere), and renaming and turning Ingush tribes and clans into Chechen (like the Fyappiy article) is a way of eventually claiming the territory of the lands these families live on. Great Soviet-Russian historians like Volkova, Krupnov and Zhdanov (whose source you used when first making the page) all wrote in their books that Fyappins are Ingush (you also have many times removed these 3 authorative sources from these great historians here here here here here here). I really hope that the admins will see the situation, it shouldn't be taken lightly. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
WikiEditor1234567123, Reiner Gavriel, neither of you should be arguing your case to me here. Pick a contested change that you want to focus on first and start a discussion on the relevant talk page, then either pose it as an WP:RfC question or request assistance at one of the noticeboards I've already linked above. signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Why are you accusing me of acts as "trying to deceive them"? This is not the way to have a civilized conversation and debate. This is also not the right place. I have already answered to basically everything you have said on the Vyappiy talk page. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Why did you purposely ignore my request? Bring authorative source that Fyappins were "Ingushfied", you did try to deceive as you made that claim which isn't supported by any authorative source. You also have no authorative sources backing that Fyappins are Chechen and Ingush society and that they belong to both nations equally. You didn't answer to everything, and as Rosguill said this isn't place to argue. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

NPP School

Hello,

I have studied documentation relevant to New pages patrol and would like to go through the training program to hone the skills.

Are you currently available as a trainer? Epifanove💬 19:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Epifanove, I don't think I can spare the time right now unfortunately. Additionally, given that you've only been editing actively for about 2 weeks, I think that NPPSCHOOL would be too advanced and not a good use of our time compared to other types of editing you could do. If you haven't seen it yet, WP:TASKS is a great page. signed, Rosguill talk 00:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I see, thank you anyway.
With regard to NPPSCHOOL being too advanced: I think that I have sufficiently familiarised myself with the majority of Wikipedia documentation, policies and culture to move into NPP, regardless of my short time here.
NPP is one of the types of editing that interests me more than others. Epifanove💬 01:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Товболатов

I'm very sorry to bother you once again but please take a look at Товболатов purposely spamming unrelated information here in many different articles (mainly articles about Ingush):[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. When I returned to previous versions, he immediately reported me ([16]) and started claiming that I remove referenced text when the only reason I remove that was because it was completely unrelated with the articles and was spam (to me it looks clear that he's trying to block objectionable user). It also looked like nationalistic editing with him highlighting the word "Chechen". WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: Isn't this considered disruptive editing at this point too? He again spammed unrelated information in many articles:[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill, I also wanted to gain your attention as you are already aware of the situation. It has come to my attention that some Ingush pages on my watchlist as mentioned here by WikiEditor1234567123 have been spammed with mulitple nationalist edits by user Товболатов. Ingush and Chechens are separate nations who are not mutually intelligible. It seems to be on ongoing issue, as I keep stumbling on these kind of edits by the same users on Ingush-related pages. It appears these users refuse to acknowledge the Ingush identity as a nation, which false under the category of nationalist editing. --Muqale (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_34&oldid=1150799763"