User talk:Rosguill/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

Awareness

User Noorullah21 is a very dubious editor who has been requesting to get AutoPatrol and Pending Change Reviewer for not any honest reason but to have the authority to edit and revert the articles as he best fits suitable. This user is also very supportive of editors from his own ethnic group and ignores the disruption and vandalism caused by them. Here is one such example. An editor named Monabhaii made this edit using unreliable self published sources [1]. Another good faith editor removed this change but Noorullah21 reverted the change back knowing very well that the sources are self published from Trafford Publishing and the other source is where the author is not even historian. [2]. So you can clearly see that for someone who is looking for AutoPatrol permit, how can you trust such editor who ignores such details of unreliable sources. He definitely cannot be trusted who also proudly likes to declare that he is supporter of Taliban.[3] editors like Monabhaii, Leviathan12, Abdullah7922 are suspected to be sock puppets of banned editor Kamal Afghan01 [4] as their edits overlap one another. Noorullah21 seems to be well aware but does not pursue to go against such sock suspects as they are contributing to his agenda. 24.3.219.151 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

While the edits at List of battles involving the Sikh Empire do give cause for concern, I don't see any discussion on the talk page that would make this rise above being a content dispute. In order for this complaint to go anywhere, you either need many more examples of poorly-justified edits by Noorullah or clear examples of them contradicting consensus or obviously misusing sources. The complaint about their professed support for the Taliban makes this notice seem like a political grievance, which further disinclines me to action. signed, Rosguill talk 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
You are right, mentioning professed support for Taliban was over the top but this awareness has nothing to do with political grievance. Focusing on awareness, there are many many examples which will be quite a tedious task to scroll through thousands of edits but I will give few more quick ones. Here is an example of canvassing. Noorullah21 made an edit [5] but when this edit was reverted with good reasoning, another user Leviathian12 made EXACT same edit back [6] and it was obvious of an ongoing canvassing which even another editor recognized [7]. Another example, Noorullah21 removed sources with page numbers and more content with false misleading description that the sources had no page numbers [8]. Reason is very clear and that is that if he isn't happy or satisfied with the result, he will create dubious misleading description to remove the good edits by other users. One more example, an editor removed WP:RAJ source which can not be verified and was added by a dubious editor Monabhaii. But Noorullah21 went ahead and added back the changes of Monabhaii knowing very well again that such WP:RAJ sources are not reliable especially when the source is poorly templated without any proof of verification. [9], especially when he himself gave reason for one of his revert on another article for source being a WP:RAJ as seen here [10]. All this is good enough reason to find this editor not suitable for any AutoPatrol permit. 24.3.219.151 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest that you bring this to ANI, as I think these accusations need collective evaluation, and that we also need to give an opportunity for Noorullah21 and other editors mentioned to provide explanations for their actions. I really only take admin actions based on reports to my talk page when the behavior is a simple, obvious violation that cannot be explained away as anything other than a clear inability/unwillingness to abide by policy. signed, Rosguill talk 13:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review

Hello, hope you’re fine and well?

I really admire all your efforts and contributions. Thanks a lot.

Please, is it okay to ask if a review can be done on a page I created since over a month ago.


Here it is: Ebuka Songs. I humbly look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards. Mevoelo (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not review articles on request. signed, Rosguill talk 13:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for collecting more than 500 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

NY International FC

Dunno why I wasn't alerted to your "notability" header. I do not want to get into an edit war and would love to discuss it here. NY International FC has been mentioned by reliable sources, both for on the field performances and unfortunate tragedies. It was named in an international magazine (World Soccer Magazine, June 2023 issue - I'd love your help sourcing that and should be able to show you the article). Its not perfect but I don't see why that's worth removing/redirecting the entire page. It plays in a historic league and has enough of a history that it merits being categorized. Also, there's Division 9 teams in England with less sources (I know that's WP:OTHERSTUFF but you need to understand how silly it is). Also, we can move this to the page's TALK page if that's better for record keeping. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

ColeTrain4EVER, yes let's discuss. I think here is fine, since the paths forward from here are either a) we agree and implement the outcome b) we disagree, in which case it would be appropriate for you to revert my blanking of the page and discussion would proceed at AfD.
This was my assessment of the sources cited:
  • Protagonist Soccer - interview without additional analysis
  • Cosmo soccer league - primary source from the league itself
  • World Soccer - paywalled, could be good but I can't access it
  • SBNation/OnceAMetro 1 - not entirely sure what to make of this source. The coverage is decent, but the branding on the page suggests a community website rather than a professional publication, and both the Staff link and the profile for the article's author lack additional information.
  • Match report - stats without analysis
  • ABC News - Coverage of the death of Davide Giri but no more than a mere mention of the club
  • NYPost - Ditto
  • SBNation/OnceAMetro 2 - similar situation as the first SBNation article, and it's the same author, which raises concerns that the author is affiliated with the club.
  • SBNation/OnceAMetro 3 - ditto
  • NY Soccer Times - interview without additional analysis
  • Forbes contributor - WP:FORBESCON, not reliable
  • QNS - ok coverage (more about Giri than the team, but it does mention the team in some detail), but the source looks like a community bulletin board more than a professional publication: no masthead, no about us, but there are submission forms.
  • Stevenson - local school blog with minimal coverage of the team
So, all told, it comes down to whether Mike Battista at SBNation/OnceAMetro is a reliable source. The most recent RSN discussion I found has a small consensus that it should be used only on a case by case basis, when the specific author is a recognized professional journalist or for completely uncontroversial details like match reports. My sense is that this bar isn't met here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Rosguill So first off, I have a copy of the World Soccer article (PDF). What would the best way to show that to you be (website or service where I can put it up for you to review)? I'm hoping to follow WP:Offline sources with this, especially with it being paywalled. But if you don't mind assuming good faith I would love to show it to you and you could help me cite it. I've never cited offline stuff before and want to do it correctly.
As for Mike Battista, if we count him as a source it looks like he's written for U.S. Soccer itself. See the bottom where it says "regular contributor to TheCup.us, Once A Metro, & New York Sports Nation". Though a recent article says he writes for Hudson River Blue now. Both of which are soccer websites for the New York area. If it comes down to SB Nation/Once A Metro being reliable, one of his articles there won a national award from United Soccer Coaches. Would USC being reputable and awarding Once A Metro give the website or author more credence? That makes sense on paper to me. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the offline source, I'm ok with accepting that on good faith. I'm not sure I find the examples bolstering Battista's case to be particularly strong, unfortunately. I'd rather see recognition from a journalistic body than a US Soccer body, as the latter isn't really independent. The media award seems to be an open-submission contest hosted by a coaches' organization rather than a professional award for excellence in the field, and being a "regular contributor" doesn't sound like an actual staff journalist position. Can you find any WP:USEBYOTHERS for Battista's work? signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't fully understand WP:USEBYOTHERS so apologies if I'm off base here. I'm not finding anything about them being staffed anywhere. Just articles at other websites for various different levels of soccer. Though there is one at Protagonist Soccer (since that popped up before). But it calls him a guest contributor. Though at the very least I think that would eliminate the concerns that they are affiliated with the club? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
By USEBYOTHERS, I mean examples of established RS (e.g. ESPN, Sports Illustrated prior to the current meltdown, or any reputable non-sports newspaper) citing Battista's work in another publication. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Then I'm not so sure. It feels like they consistently write for Hudson River Blue, which used to be SB Nation but is independent now. But in terms of being mentioned by established RS I'm struggling. Is that a deal breaker then? It's frustrating since it feels like they're established enough as a "soccer source". Even if U.S. Soccer isn't independent, soccer itself isn't covered extensively in the United States like it is in Europe. So I think it should be worth something in terms of validity.
Look, I don't think every soccer team needs a Wikipedia page. I don't think every Cosmopolitan Soccer League team needs one. But NYIFC feels like its a "notable" lower division soccer team in the United States. But because its lower division, and not playing in a national league, the types of sources it gets are lower. They won't get a NY Times article. But they do get covered by soccer media in New York. Combined with Giri's murder, the former Bundesliga player on their roster, and World Soccer mentioning them in an article about NYC soccer (and the team's tenable connection to the NY Cosmos fanbase) it feels like its low grade notable (but still notable). ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a gray area, and for that reason, if you were to restore the article I would probably leave it to someone else to review. However, if you want a more definitive opinion on the source's reliability, I think it would be appropriate to open a thread at WP:RSN and ask whether Mike Battista writing at SBNation is sufficiently to contribute towards establishing notability for a soccer team and other sports journalism claims. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Rosguill wouldn't me restoring it after you reviewed it be a faux pas? Like, as much as I disagree with you I'm seeing a lot of praise for your work on this page. Plus your user page itself shows you know what you're talking about haha. I'll consider it though.
In the meantime, can I ask you two things:
1: What's the best way to cite the World Soccer article? Just add the info to the "Cite News" template? Like I said, never cited non-web material before.
2: Let's say NYIFC isn't ready right now. If they, say, enter U.S. Open Cup qualifying - that would be enough right? Since previous discussions have ruled participation in a national knockout tournament is basis for GNG.
In which case, thank you for not deleting the article and simply making it a re-direct. That would make restoring the page much easier. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
ColeTrain4EVER We do have {{Cite magazine}}, which you can find in the Insert --> Template menu instead of the usual citation menu.
I'm not familiar with a standard that participation in a knockout tournament establishes notability. Back when WP:FPL was an active guideline, there was a standard that participation in a fully-professional league established notability for players, and in practice, teams were presumed notable in this situation as well. That might be what you're thinking of? signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
If it helps, Rosguill, I have your talk page on my watchlist for some reason and saw the FC and got curious what this was from the header. I looked at the page before the redirect including analyzing the sources and I would send it to AfD for not passing GNG if restored. Not sure about World Soccer but apart from that I don't see a source that either sufficiently covers the team or is clearly reliable in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Got it, thanks @Rosguill. BTW, I was thinking of WP:FOOTYN which says "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national tier(s) of the league structure in countries where no cup exists or in the countries whose national cup does not include all teams who play in the national league(s)) generally meet WP:GNG criteria". So I think the safer option here is to leave your decision as it is for now, especially after what @SportingFlyer said. And if something changes I can restore the page at a later date with more acceptable sources. Which, again, I appreciate you not deleting it and making it a re-direct. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing from your NPPSCHOOL

Hello Rosguill! Over a year ago (About October 2022), I became an NPPSCHOOL student of yours. I had a lot of trouble figuring out the curriculum and keeping up with it. As I haven't edited the page in four months and have a lot more experience with AfC and editing Wikipedia in general, I'd like to withdraw from this program. I feel bad about this, but I just don't think those questions were helping me and I could probably get the NPP user rights without them now. Sorry! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban from 2022 may not have been logged?

Hello Rosguill. A current AE complaint makes reference to a topic ban of User:Grandmaster that you imposed in 2022. A link to the ban is here User:Vanamonde93 has observed:

I am slightly confused as to why neither GM's 2022 TBAN nor its lifting can be found in the AE log, but I assume that if that TBAN was still in place someone would have mentioned it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 9 February

From a quick look I could not find the ban recorded in WP:DSLOG. Could you check and see if it is there? If not it's not too late for you to add it, because the log is only a form of record-keeping. Could the ban have been lifted somehow? If the indefinite ban is still in place ("indefinitely topic-banned from AA2"), then Grandmaster should not have been making edits on Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians at all. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The ban was lifted by an AE decision about a year later IIRC. My guess is that it was probably deleted from the log, rather than struck, at that time. Here's the diff of me logging it in 2022 Special:Diff/1072614281. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Without throwing around any blame here - I'm quite capable of forgetting to log - I do think we should enter both the original sanction and its lifting into the log. Both pieces of information are relevant, I'd say, for anyone evaluating the conflict down the road. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I found the edit where it was removed at the time of the sanction being lifted in October 2022, 8 months after the original ban. I've restored the original ban text, struck it, and provided an explanation with a link to the sanction appeal decision. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
User:Rosguill, thanks for sorting this out. It is ironic that there is some advice at the top of DSLOG which states:

Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry

So the strikeout (that you just implemented) is actually the preferred method for lifting a ban entry in DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor keeps deleting my Edits in bad faith

@Zinnober9 keeps deleting the title section of the info box for the Article Ahmed Gurey despite me sourcing it in the article. He also deleted my edits to [[Zeila (Historical Region) for no reason. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Also I believe he is violating WP:Hound he keeps and following every edit I make and reverting it.
A couple Examples:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeila_(historical_region)&diff=prev&oldid=1205603119&title=Zeila_%28historical_region%29&diffonly=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_ibn_Ibrahim_al-Ghazi&diff=prev&oldid=1205602555&title=Ahmad_ibn_Ibrahim_al-Ghazi&diffonly=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Somalia&diff=prev&oldid=1205600813&title=List_of_wars_involving_Somalia&diffonly=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nasir_ibn_Uthman&diff=prev&oldid=1205154282&title=Nasir_ibn_Uthman&diffonly=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colonies&diff=prev&oldid=1205152178&title=List_of_colonies&diffonly=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavery_in_Ethiopia&diff=prev&oldid=1205151981&title=Slavery_in_Ethiopia&diffonly=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gulf_of_Aden&diff=prev&oldid=1203498757&title=Gulf_of_Aden&diffonly=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sa%27ad_ad-Din_II&diff=prev&oldid=1203497690&title=Sa%27ad_ad-Din_II&diffonly=1 Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Matan ibn Uthman, looking through these edits, Zinnober9 appears to have generally provided proper justifications for their edits: across pretty much all of these edits, they responded to either a removal of sourced content without explanation, or the addition or reformulation of new content without a new source. Hounding only applies if there is no overridingly constructive reason [for the edits].-- signed, Rosguill talk 13:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The content wasn’t sourced though. Not to mention he deleted the Ahmed Gurey edit despite providing a source Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Matan ibn Uthman, you are pretty clearly editing against a talk page consensus at Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi; discussion has been ongoing since February 8 and is not looking to be in favor of your position, yet you reinstated your preferred version today on February 10. I would suggest that you self-revert and follow the discussion to its conclusion, or I'm going to have to block you. At Zeila (historical region), in this diff you remove content sourced to the Cambridge History of Africa with the edit summary Added sources. At best, this is insufficient diligence on your part. signed, Rosguill talk 13:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
But It’s a misquotation the source doesn’t say that Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Then you should have made that clear in the edit summary, rather than saying "added sources". signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Note

Hello @Rosguill! Just so you know, @Товболатов started again editing in the area where he's topic-banned from, see here: [11], [12], [13]. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 13:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Rosguill again! I had not realized this much earlier but... isn't @Simba16 creating the article "Bersa Sheikh" and @Takhirgeran Umar "Tovbolat Kurchaloevsky" considered WP:MEATPUPPETRY as the Russian analogies of these articles were all heavily edited by @Товболатов while the Russian analogue of the article "Tovbolat ..." was created by Товболатов? Seems like they created Kurchaloy [ru] (to which, I assume, Товболатов belongs) related articles for Товболатов while he's blocked. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 15:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd want to see more evidence of cross-project meatpuppetry before taking action on this second accusation. It's likely going to take a fair amount of digging, and the involved accounts should be given a chance to speak to their case, so this is something that should be brought to AE, rather than my talk page, if you wish to pursue it further. signed, Rosguill talk 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Review

  • Why isn't the article appearing on Google? I've been the Wikipedia editor for a long time now, and whenever I create articles they do appear on Google. But surprisingly this time, it didn't appear. So my question is, Why hasn't the article appeared on Google?

--Princessruby (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles should not appear on Google search until they have been marked as reviewed. I can't speak to whatever happened with the other articles you're thinking of, but it's not too unusual for Google to sometimes pick stuff up even when we haven't released it. signed, Rosguill talk 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please help me to get copy of a deleted profile

Dear Rosguill, The profile that I have translated from Vietnamese into English ( profile of Michael Baron) got deleted. I really appreciate all feedback and would like to review my work and understand better how to create wiki profiles/improve the profile. Could you please send me copy of the deleted profile if possible. I would like to see if I can make further improvements and i think others may edited it after me so I may not have final version Thank you so much. I am really keen to understand better how to do the translations/creations of profiles. Emma Emma knows it well (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

No, this request suggests to me that you still fundamentally don't understand how English Wikipedia's inclusion policies work, and I'm frankly still under the impression that you have an ulterior motive in writing about Michael Baron. signed, Rosguill talk 14:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Request

Hi @Rosguill. Could you please remove advanced flags from my alt account AafiOnMobile? I don't see any need of these flags at the moment. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. ─ Aafī (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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 2024 prove to be a happy and successful year for you and your family

Josey Wales Parley 22:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Extremely snide comments

Hello, User:Botushali, whom you recently warned about CTOPS, has been making snide comments at Talk:Lynkestis, especially this: As a side note, I don't know what kind of children's books Alexikoua is reading. None of the books I read as a child were all about domination.... This, after they cast aspersions against me [14], and after I warned him against doing that, this was their response [15]. I have contacted another admin who is familiar with this user, but since you are the admin that issued the CTOPS notice, I felt it appropriate to contact you as well. For the record, this is a major flashpoint article, with lots of reverts and tension in the talkpage. Khirurg (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill.
Let me start off by stating that Khirurg has complained on the talk page of the admin @ToBeFree, who was rational enough to realise that the usage of the term “childish” is in reference to Alexikoua utilising the term “childish” in unfitting contexts. I’d perhaps toss that up to a language barrier for Alexikoua, but they do have a track record of using that word a lot. Anyways, that’s not really an issue here.
Indeed, I have actual diffs that provide concrete proof of Khirurg reverting me on a couple instances without checking the sources, only to admit they were wrong. So either they were reverting me out of spite, or they were intentionally falsifying sources. I can provide these diffs if need be.
In regards to Khirurg’s “warning”, this was it: I strongly recommend you avoid edit-warring and casting aspersions, unless you want your 3 month block at Battle of Kosovo to become wikipedia-wide. Hardly seems like an appropriate or mature warning to me - it’s quite “inflammatory” (for lack of a better term), so I’m surprised that Khirurg is now complaining about me for responding in a tone that matches theirs. Keep in mind this “warning” is coming from the same user who keeps a list of taunts to try and victimise themselves to the admins with - on this very list there are 3 (yes, not 1, but 3) examples of editors bringing up Khirurg’s past blocks. So, that means Khirurg considers editors mentioning their past blocks as taunts, as Khirurg compiles them on a list of “taunts” against him. In that case, he is intentionally taunting me by bringing up my past block? Interesting stuff. Botushali (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Khirurg, Botushali, the complaints raised here seem mild enough that I'm not inclined to take action at this time. If you think there is a stronger case to be made that this is a pattern of behavior (with appropriate diffs to back it up), I'd suggest taking it to AE, I really only consider acting on obvious, open-and-shut cases brought to my attention here. signed, Rosguill talk 14:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access

*here from the active admins list*
Hello. Can you please remove this IP's talk page access?: 203.59.230.30. They are abusing it. – 2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you :). – 2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to move talk page

Hi, it seems like you forgot to move the talk page of Caddebostan, Kadıköy to Caddebostan. Cheers! Youprayteas (t • c) 11:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That's odd, that should have happened automatically. At any rate, now that you added the {{old afd}} tag to Talk:Caddebostan there isn't anything that really needs to be moved there. signed, Rosguill talk 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
That's true, just wanted to point it out, seemed odd to me that's why. Youprayteas (t • c) 14:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability

After the first notability tag on the 2023–24 LEN Women's Euro Cup, I brought several foreign articles into the page to improve it. Now, you've put the notability tag back for the page without giving me even an explanation. I have no clue what is wrong with this page. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources you cite do not add up to WP:GNG. The best form of coverage for demonstrating that would be in-depth reporting of the championship itself. Looking at the sources cited:
  • Total-Waterpolo has minimal coverage of the Women's Euro Cup
  • FOS Online mostly just reprints the bracket listing.
  • FFNation has an unbylined press release
  • Nemzeti Sport gives very minimal coverage to the Women's Euro Cup alongside several other competitions
  • Il Meridiano has another press release.
The kind of coverage that actually establishes notability would be sources that analyze the event in depth, rather than just repeating announcements regarding its format. Examples of this kind of coverage are articles like this one, that examine the implications of the tournament's schedule, or this article that comments directly on the cultural significance of the subject tournament, or detailed match writeups such as this.
Now, in this case I think it's plausible that there exists such writeups spread across multiple languages, that may be difficult to find due to the rather generic name of the tournament (and that "LEN" often ends up either translated or omitted, making searching for coverage even harder), which is why today I placed the {{notability}} tag and also marked the page as reviewed, releasing it from the new pages queue for search engine indexing. I had actually forgotten that I had previously tagged this page a few weeks back; I simply came across it again while going through the new pages queue today. Had I believed that this subject has no shot at establishing notability, I would have proceeded to nominate it for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral Edits

@Rosguill I edit on a neutral ground. Am not receiving anything from anybody and not compensated by anybody. I follow the wikipedia policy. I work as an editor on Wikipedia, so as to contribute in a free an fair way Thanks. Jutos222 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding High Commission of The Gambia, New Delhi

Dear Rosguill.

The edits and contributions are made on neutral grounds on subjects where i fairly know a bit more or would have read it. i spend 5-6 hours everyday reading news and content as part of my job, so i would fairly know more about a few developments. I am not paid by anyone to do these things and i am not related to any of these folks. I have gone ahead and undone the edit and i hope I have your respect and goodwill towards the same. Thank you Rosguill. Apologies if my edits created confusion, but i work in full compliance with wiki policies. Sincerely, yours. BellaNYork (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

BellaNYork, be sure to review notability guidelines--separate from the COI inquiry, the High Commission of Gambia, New Delhi article does not meet this guideline as written. signed, Rosguill talk 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill ! You are the best judge, your primary contention was COI which I clarified, now you change the same to notability. After all it is a government embassy and by default it is notable. Should we wish to change, delete the same, we defeat the very purpose of how society and readers would benefit. I call upon your wisdom to permit the same and i hope good sense prevails. My highest regards and assurances ! Keep cheerful & thank you for your time and consideration. BellaNYork (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
BellaNYork, Government offices are not notable by default. Please actually read our notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Archived

Hi. The report I've opened was auto archived [16], but shouldn't it be closed first? Vanezi (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

International Association for the Study of Dreams (AfD)

Hi, many thanks for drawing attention to the woeful lack of reliable sources at International Association for the Study of Dreams. I've done my best at the AfD to provide multiple new references, including three from The Washington Post, which I found by searching for the organisation's old name "Association for the Study of Dreams". I've listed seven of the best sources at the AfD and I think you should be able to pick your own "top 3" from these. Hope this helps, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Esowteric, I appreciate the work you've put into this. Unfortunately, I've hit the WaPo paywall, so I'll defer to what others can say about the relevant sources. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Rosguill. Yes, I hit the pay wall after three freebies yesterday. I discounted a fourth WP article after reading the page source with much difficulty. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer

Hi. You are mistaken. Kind Regards. BobVillars (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Page moves

I wanted to leave a personal message for you. I appreciated your thoughtful responses to me during the unblock discussion. I have a question about the page moves. I noticed later that the latest review I found about the Tohoku earthquake was still describing the plate that Honshu is located on as the "North American or Okhotsk plate" [17]. Microplate was used by Britannica. I got these mixed up. Britiannica is a pretty bad source for tectonic plate articles. I wonder if this is why Vanezi considered the moves inconsequential? It was a mix up on my part so it's ok with me if you undo them. Cornsimpel (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Vanezi's reasoning was more that your edits looked like an uncharacteristic burst of quick activity in response to learning about the extended-confirmed rules than anything else. As I myself have very minimal familiarity with tectonic plate articles, I'd defer to whatever you think is the best representation of reliable sources on these topics. signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I read WP:GAME carefully and the policy only says "making unconstructive edits" to gain EC is not allowed. I don't think my edits were unconstructive by any reasonable interpretation and I was close to EC anyway.Even though no one but you and Vanezi supported a topic ban, I am not going to edit in that topic area again because this is a low priority subject for me. It doesn't effect me personally, I am not of Armenian or Turkish heritage, and I am allowed to contribute on many diverse areas of this project without experiencing hostility towards my contributions. I am disinclined to make contributions that I can feel are unwanted even if I don't understand why they are unwanted. Vanezi simply does not want me to be allowed to edit about Armenian ethnic conflict, which according to him, includes edits about earthquakes and fault zones in modern Turkey, and I am not going to fight you over this [18]. Additionally, I had an opportunity to review Vanezi's edits, and I think you should also review Vanezi's edits more carefully and be a little more slow on the trigger in the future. The articles currently seem to slant towards a pronounced right wing Armenian nationalist viewpoint where I would encourage more of a diversity of views among Armenians of different views to be represented in the talk page discussions. Vanezi's removals and edit summaries to the Western Armenia article show that his definition of Western Armenia is strictly geographical[19] and challenged by the high quality sourced content that I added to the east Anatolia article (without intending to challenge him)[20]. He does not want to discuss it on the talk page, so, whatever. If I had understood this before editing, I would not have made those changes to the article because I am not going to edit in a minefield. I simply will not and I don't think good faith editing should be a blockable offense on Wikipedia, even when it gets heated. Please consider my viewpoint for the future. All editors are allowed to edit, but I will not cause any further problems by editing this contentious topic. Cornsimpel (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Nazran Airport

Hello @Rosguill! Is there a way to make a request to delete not only the enWiki page but also the faWiki and tgWiki pages of this article? No airport exists in Nazran. Best regards, WikiEditor123… 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123, not to my knowledge, you'll have to either file deletion procedures following those projects' local instructions, or potentially you may be able to get help from a steward on metawiki (this is not my area of expertise). signed, Rosguill talk 04:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The process for wikis with no active administration would be to request at m:GSR. For wikis with active local administration (which includes both fawiki and tgwiki IMO, but I'm not the one making the decision) then you have to follow local processes and the stewards won't do anything. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

PBS Kids Sprout

Can you take another look at PBS Kids Sprout? It looks like the IP editor tried to make it a stub again. -- William Graham talk 22:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

William Graham, I think we can give the page a little bit more time, seeing as the IP's last edit was an hour ago or so. If they fail to provide sources again in a day or two (or if the page gets another cycle of BLAR and recreation without the provision of sources), then I think page protection will be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 23:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association for the Study of Dreams

Hello, Rosguill,

A lot of editing has been done on this article since it was nominated by you. Can you review its development and see whether you still believe it merits deletion?

P.S. I saw the PBS Kids Sprout note and it reminds me of sockpuppets we have who continue to try to create that article as well as ones for other children's TV series. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I'm a little bit disinclined to re-review it per the reasoning at User:Rosguill/New_pages_patrol_is_racist#Behavior_at_AfD (racism isn't the issue here, but I think that the same "the goal of AfD is not to win" attitude may apply here) I suspect that the available sources still fall short of ORGCRITE but don't want to over-influence the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 14:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SpaceX Starship 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 16:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeking adoption

Hi!

I’m fairly inexperienced in Wikipedia despite making minor edits for a few years. (I’m a professional editor irl.)

I find the system here to be extremely daunting and non-transparent: Particularly, I’ve truly had trouble navigating the protocol to appeal editorial decisions? I can’t find earlier (archived?) conversations on talk pages, to track the history of issues. I’ve felt intimidated by specific seniors with what I’ve perceived as a dismissive, arrogant “rightness”. I would love some respectful guidance.

thank you.

Chico1112 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Chico1112, could you clarify a bit more what sorts of editing you're having difficulty with? signed, Rosguill talk 14:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

House of Romay deletion abandoned

Good morning @Rosguill. I believe House of Romay deletion discussion reached community majority, but I also feel it's been abandoned after the initial 4 sockpuppets were blocked, with two new ones popping up and currently reviewed as potential sockpuppets too - this could be endless. As a neutral, and only polyglot admin (that has reviewed Spanish and English info and also voted delete) I thought perhaps you can do the honors. Benzeneshamus (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Benzeneshamus, I don't think I'm the only polyglot admin, but regardless, as I have !voted in the discussion, I am considered WP:INVOLVED and cannot close it. I expect a patrolling admin will likely close it later today, as it is currently sitting in the ready-to-close queue. signed, Rosguill talk 15:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft Michael Beil

Hi Rosguill,

I have discussed my previously rejected draft of an article about Michael Beil with the reviewer. It was not an easy process, but I think I managed to address all relevant issues with the article.

During that process, something rather disturbing happened. Michael Beil reached out to me to inform me that he has been contacted by a number of people via email, claiming to be Wikipedia editors and offering him help to get 'his' page published. I read the page about this type of scam and I will report the emails. I wanted to let you know as well.

Best RDiependaele (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Lambanilakyanaik

Hi, Rosguill. Thanks for giving Lambanilakyanaik a CT alert and a warning that they need to reply about COI/UPE. I don't know if you're aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramaprabha1? I actually think L is pretty ripe for an indef, whether or not they're a sock. The edit filter alone... But now that you've warned them, it may of course be as well to wait a bit. A CU is presumably also coming for them. Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC).

Bishonen, I was not familiar with the SPI or the prior account that they're suspected of being linked to; I wouldn't oppose an indef for general disruption/CIR at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_41&oldid=1221526992"