Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Request for Review

Hello, I have a Request for review Can you please review those if notable or eligible.

  1. Millat Times
  1. Shafiq Khan
  1. Sanjay Lathar

–Botu Yadav (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do reviews on request. I'll note that Millat Times has improvement tags on it that you should probably try to address, and that Sanjay Lathar has already been reviewed. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Botu Yadav:, Millat Times is a nice and reliable media source in Urdu, and I've known it to be okay. But I doubt this is a paid work and has COI associated with it. I do not find sources explicit in establishing notability as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile:, I don't know why you thought that this is paid, I had never did a paid work. Whenever i am free, I do 1-4 articles at a time. So, it's not about paid work. Millat Times had 1 Million followers which page was deleted, so i think this is also good for establishing the Notability and many sources are listed below.

—Botu Yadav (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Rosguill,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 852 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for review

Hey my friend Rosguill when i search Saiee Manjrekar article on google, the article doesn't see on google, please 🙏 review it Md Adnan (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do reviews on request. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Md Adnan, do you have any connections with the subject? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Ofcourse Biroo ❤️ Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Please review this article Saiee Manjrekar Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Md Adnan, please see WP:COI and disclose all your connections. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Integrated Systems Inc. notability

You added a Notability tag and I'm looking for guidance on what to do. The page was preexisting, but it was just a redirect to *one* of the company's products which wasn't very useful. I simply added some flesh to the bones. The company's products had pre-exisiting WP pages, as did the founder and their investor. The company is also mentioned from those pages, and I converted those mentions to links to this new page. So it seems inconsistent if those are notable but the company is not. Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company of the same name, the company Integrated Systems Inc. is defunct for 12 years, it looks like names can be recycled.

-- Peter.corke (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Peter.corke, So, redirect suitability and notability are two separate questions. My concern with the article is that it does not, as written, meet WP:NCORP, as it lacks citations to multiple examples of significant secondary-source coverage. Brief reports about mergers and funding are generally not considered significant: we're looking for in-depth articles analyzing the company's products, structure, impact, etc. Federal court judgments, meanwhile, are an example of a primary source, so while they may sometimes be usable to back up a citation, it's not relevant to notability (although the existence of a high profile court case could suggest that additional secondary coverage about the case may exist). I'm not sure what you mean by Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company--the notability tag doesn't include a link to any other article, nor did I mention one in the edit summary. At the time that I placed the tag, I didn't have any opinion of what next steps should be: I placed it to let you know about my concerns, and to give you time to address them before I or another new page reviewer proceed to a deletion process or WP:BLAR.
Now, if the subject of the article is found to be not notable, then we would consider either deleting it or converting it to a redirect; if there are no suitable targets, then deletion is the way to go. I'll note that PSOS (real-time operating system), the previous redirect target, was created all the way back in 2002, before we had consistent processes for new article reviewing, so there's a nontrivial chance that it may not be notable either. However, it is technically possible for a company's product to be notable even if the company isn't (i.e. if the only independent, significant coverage relating to the company is focused primarily on a specific product), especially because our notability standards are higher for companies than they are about individual products. signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Re my "*different* company" comment it looks like the "Find sources" part of the tag is just doing a generic Google search for "Integrated Systems Inc." with news/newspaper/book tags, which is why all I see is hits about the new company.
Are "trade magazines" considered suitable sources? For example [1], [2] or [3]? Peter.corke (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
It depends. Wired is generally good, although the linked article is borderline as far as the coverage's depth. The EDN piece has no byline and looks like large chunks, if not all of it, are straight out of a press release. The Military Aerospace piece looks like good coverage of Boeing McDonnell, not so much of ISI. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP Question

Shouldn't we require NPPSCHOOL for editors with under 3k–5k edits before they can become autopatrolled/reviewers? I realize they're given a trial period, but who is overseeing them during the trial? I'm of the mind that proper schooling = better reviews that won't crop up later in the queue, and even if they turn out to be UPE, it reduces the chances of getting another Hatchens, or worse. Atsme 💬 📧 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Their track record would be reviewed when they re-apply for permissions. My concern with sending people to NPPSCHOOL by default is that I'm worried about inadvertently providing NPP training to black-hat editors; generally I save the NPPSCHOOL recommendation for editors who are clearly here in good faith but whose NPP-related skills aren't quite where they need to be for the permission. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to see something bizarre, see see this discussion. It's possible that I misunderstood something, or incorrectly assumed the obvious was obvious, but that's never been a major issue for me, although I'm far from being perfect. I have encountered editors with issues involving sentence comprehension and use–mention distinction. I thought that what I proposed aligned with what's already on the project page, except that I added collegial equestrian, and stock horse/western competition under equestrian sports, never imagining that it would be an issue. I was adding it to help clarify equine/equestrian topics for reviewers. How it got twisted into the opposition thinking my proposal suggested that significant coverage was not required is beyond me. In fact the section where I attempted to include it even states Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual people and horses who are involved in equestrian sport if they: so I'm thinking they somehow conflated my proposal with the proposal in the section above. It's just too bizarre. Atsme 💬 📧 01:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Posting my concerns here made me look deeper into the issue. Hopefully this edit brings the needed clarity and resolves the issue. Atsme 💬 📧 01:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Slywriter

Slywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Slywriter finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, so she/he did not spend any time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Slywriter&offset=20220725225033&target=Slywriter Ad65718 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong

Theroadislong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Theroadislong finished his/her talk with 112.206.242.198 (User_talk:112.206.242.198) on 20:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC), so he spent around 2 minutes to make a decision and write her/his comments, and she/he did not have time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Theroadislong&offset=20220726071241&target=Theroadislon Ad65718 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Cabrils

Cabrils (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cabrils finished his/her talk with DevaneyJohn (User_talk:DevaneyJohn) on 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 00:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC), so he/she spent just 2 minutes to read and check the references, and then make a decision! You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cabrils&offset=20220720221645&target=Cabrils Ad65718 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gstatic.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gstatic.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Palosirkka (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating new article (application of guidelines)

Hello, I am a (relatively) new contributor and am experiencing a challenge in getting my first new article published (even as a stub), and therefore would appreciate some feedback from the experienced editor like yourself. I have tried to learn from my very first submission (which appeared like a good candidate to me at the time) but seemingly I didn't quote enough sources and it was declined, so for my second attempt I've chosen the subject for whom I've had a good variety of quality independent sources with significant coverage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Rovenko), as I've been following their work for a while now.

The same editor who declined my very first failed article had also reviewed my new submission and left a couple of comments questioning the suitability of my submission, but not declining it. I tried to get a clarification from this editor on their Talk page to confirm the reasons behind their concerns, while providing the reference to the notability guidelines that I used as a basis for my submission, but after asking some additional questions they didn't provide any specifics at all and directed me to find help elsewhere, which I'm trying to do now.

If it's ok, it might be easier if I refer to our conversation with the editor, so that I don't have to repeat my points: Article_Review_Comment_on_Andrew_Rovenko

I'd really appreciate some guidance / constructive feedback from another experienced editor like yourself, as at the moment it doesn't seem like I'm making much progress.

Thank you Jervisbay94 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Jervisbay94

At a glance, I think I agree with the prior reviewer: it seems like what is actually covered in citations is Rocketgirl, not Rovenko, and I don't think the achievements listed in the article add up to WP:NCREATIVE; to meet that standard, I would want to see multiple, in-depth reviews or critiques attesting to the work's lasting importance and legacy, and preferably a broader body of notable work. Given that Rovenko won an "emerging photographer" award this year, I would wager that this article is WP:TOOSOON. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@Rosguill Thank you, I really appreciate your response and clarification, as it really helps me understand better the perspective from which the new articles are assessed. I only wish that these considerations were included into the guidelines for WP:NCREATIVE, as the particular criteria that I thought applies to my subject specifies that the work has to be significant or well known and a subject of multiple independent periodical articles, both of which seemed to relevant to me in this case (and there's a separate criteria related to the importance of the author, but it doesn't seem like they need to apply simultaneously)
I did find additional international media coverage of this work (including non-English language media). If I wanted to include this coverage into the article for future assessments but not use them for citations, what would be the best section to include these sources?
Thanks again for your very kind response! Jervisbay94 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ars arcana Rfd close

Hi there, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_27#Ars_arcana as delete. The deletion summary does not link to the discussion, only to the general Rfd page. Since you mention the discussion in your close for attribution reasons, I think it's worth trying going back to link directly to the discussion. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's an unfortunate oversight of the script. I've addressed it just now. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove me from Redirect autopatrol list

Hi Rosguill, you were the person who put me on the Redirect autopatrol list, could you remove me from there? I am now autopatrolled and it doesn't make sense anymore. Thank you very much and sorry for the inconvenience, I have made the request here. Dandilero (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charan 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 07:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet master using multiple IP accounts

Hi Rosguill, I have found IP users linked to one sockpuppet master who you have previously banned. [4] He's back now using different IP users to restore his old revisions that I've reverted months back. [5] [6] Ayaltimo (talk) 06:08, 08 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see enough evidence to justify blocking them: at Barakat ibn Umar Din, they did restore content added by Zemenfes, but it's not clear that the two IPs are connected, and the second IP could plausibly have come across the prior reverted change and reacted to it, rather than having colluded with Zemenfes. The change at Mansur ad-Din of Adal is similar, but not identical to Zemenfes's edits, and reviewing the rest of their editing history I don't see any dead-ringers other than a shared interested in East African topics. Given that Zemenfes was blocked primarily for edit warring and inappropriate edit summaries, I'm disinclined to take action unless more of the same occurs again. signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
2601:280:CB02:1C79:146E:722B:2C2B:5CC7 you're talking about here is part of the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range currently suspected in ZemenfesKidus' SPI. I looked into this for a few hours, and found much evidence, which I've filed there.
@Ayaltimo: perhaps in the future, it would be better not to revert with "IP vand rv" as edsum, as you did here and here. First of all, this is not vandalism (please read WP:NOTVANDALISM), and second, as long as a user has not been proven to be a sockpuppet, you should not revert solely on that basis. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Apaugasma: I understand. I was too busy to build a strong case against ZemenfesKidus. I saw the SPI but there has been no response from there so I thought I could come here and show IP users restoring old reversions belonging to the sock master. I've been encountering the same problems right here. [7] They share a similar IP range and launch attacks on multiple pages with many being vandalized so that's why I continued with "IP vand RV" when he removed sourced content [8]. Either way, thank you for building a strong case. They've been quite disruptive. Ayaltimo (talk) 16:28, 09 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirect autopatrol

Hi Rosguill. Since the accidental damage of my laptop on 14 May, I'm not in a position to access my main account, and the technician alongside the LCD is likely [not sure] to come after 8 July, according to the customer care executive of the Dell. It is getting delayed due to lockdown in China. I contribute to very little extent through RMT and AfC etc on my mobile account. The moving process is all about redirects in between, and they often go un-patrolled. Please grant my account the psuedo-right so that the redirect are by-default marked as patrolled. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Toufik Boushaki

Hello. I cordially ask you to copy in my Sandbox the deleted article on the energy researcher Toufik Boushaki, now within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was deleted on May 20, 2021 at 10:39, in order to improve it. Cordially. --Authentise (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It is now at User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Gabe Klinger Article Review

Hey Rosguill, I saw you reviewed my page for Gabe Klinger. Someone else took it down because they felt it lacked notability. I was wondering if you think I should revert the page back to what it was or do you also think this is a subject that lacks notability? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob1026 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the redirect, not the article, so no opinion on the pre-existing article's notability as I have not looked at it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Rob1026, I skimmed through the pre-existing article and I agree that there's no indication of independent notability. Neither do the sources help the subject pass WP:GNG nor are there significant and multiple roles which would help the subject qualify WP:NFILMMAKER. So, please desist and don't revert but try to work on issues that have been highlighted to you. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Will do thanks for the input. Rob1026 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. May I please ask your senior opinion, in view of your experience of peaceful dispute resolution in AA topics? Here, I started a discussion about a revert that I felt was not justified. Not so much the content of the revert, but the method of operation itself, which I feel i(knowing the user well) is being overused. I admit I sounded more irritated then an average user would be in such average situation. However, what followed afterwards puzzled me very much - the intervention by the mentor felt anything but mediation or dispute resolution attempt to me. I felt attacked and threatened, and was left bewildered about the whole policy vs guidelines vs essay difference. Do you think it was a right step to ask an emotionally involved mentor to intervene instead of providing explanation and using neutral dispute resolution tools? And what is the right thing to do with the intimidating response from the mentor? Does it comply with Wikipedia code of conduct? Thanks. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Eh, mentoring on Wikipedia is rather informal, and someone mentoring another editor isn't obligated to intervene as a mediator or uninvolved party. They did get more testy with you than would have been ideal, but I think they're right on the underlying matter: Golden doesn't appear to have done anything wrong by reverting your change, and your responses on the talk page could be read as wikilawyering as well as inaccurate advice. If MJL had showed up to vote stack on the content question, that would be a canvassing issue, but they limited their response to addressing misconceptions about policies and guidelines around edit warring, so I'm not really seeing a sanctionable issue here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain things in a plain language, Rosguill, much appreciated! Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Nicolai L. Volodos

Dear Rosguill, Many thanks for your partitipation in improving of created by us article Nicolai L. Volodos. Following your recommendation, some references have been added. In case you consider that improvement enough to remove your tag, please do it.

Vit713828 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit713828 (talk • contribs)

Vit713828, thanks for continuing to work on the article, but looking at it again it looks like there are still many paragraphs with no citations at all that at a minimum could use a footnote for an existing source. signed, Rosguill talk 15:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill,
I am writing to you on behalf of our International team developing this article (Nicolai L Volodos).
First and foremost, thank you for your attention to our work.
But, before to proceed further, I would like to ask you to read this material (https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(22)00142-3/fulltext#relatedArticles. ) for better understanding of the person we are talking about.
Looking into the history of this article, you may see that we started our work on 22 May 2020, and have been continuing it until very recently, keeping the article in form of a draft. Such approach has allowed us to prevent any unwanted interferenceі in our work.
Now, why?
From the text you can see that Professor NL Volodos lived and worked in Ukraine. Mostly all materials, published by him and about him, are in Russian or Ukrainian. So, in those materials, already listed in the References, Russian speaking people can find all the dada required to consider them as proves for all the facts mentioned in this Wiki article.
Members of our informal group are Internationally recognized experts in the field of vascular and endovascular surgery from Western Europe and the States, and former Professor Volodos’ colleagues, including his son dr. Sergiy Volodos. We all knew Professor Volodos personally, many of us worked with him for many years.
Currently, we work hard on translation of the works published by Professor N Volodos and his colleagues in Russian into good English. So, later we will be able to add them to the References. But, this process is very complicated. We have to pay attention to the copyrights and that sort of possible issues, etc.
After all, this is our plan for your consideration. First possible option is to remove all your tags from the page (so, they will not encourage some ignorants to make changes to the article for the purpose just to take part in the process) and prevent the material (in case that is in your power) from further editings for the period required for preparation of the mentioned works in English, which will be added to the References in due course. Such approach can help us to protect the article from incompetent editions we are worried about. The second possible option is to hide (or even remove the article from the English Wiki), so, we will be able to improve it further in the less aggressive environment. In the second case, no one will be able to see that information about Professor N Volodos in English. The second is not the best option, because some lecturers and Professors are going to refer to this page during their lectures for medical and post-graduate students.
Thank you, and count on your understanding and informal approach to the problem.
Vit713828 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
So, three issues:
  1. I don't see what any of what you just wrote has to do with including inline citations. If the existing Russian references support all of the content in the article, simply create additional footnotes pointing to the existing references so that each paragraph and exceptional claim is verifiable.
  2. Wikipedia has a strict rule against sharing accounts. If you are working on this or other articles as a team, please create a separate account for each individual participating.
  3. We also have strict conflict of interest policies. If you are all former colleagues of Volodos, that comprises a conflict of interest, and you should a) disclose it on your user page b) disclose it on the talk page of any article you edit where it is relevant c) avoid editing relevant articles directly, in favor of submitting edit requests. signed, Rosguill talk 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed and clear explanations! Now it seems to me that it would be better to remove our article for a while for deep re-editing, taking into account your recommendations. Hope that its next appearance will be much more successful.
Vit713828 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Could you, please, help me change the status of the article back to a draft? I can't do it. Thank you!
Vit713828 (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
At this point I think that draftifying is unnecessary, as my prior searches indicate that Volodos meets our notability guidelines, which means that we should have an article on him, and it's fine to fix its last few problems while it's in mainspace. If you want to notify editors and readers that the article is being actively worked on, you can use the templates {{under construction}} and {{in use}}. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Can I count on your further practical help in improving this article? If so, please, add template «in use» to the article (I am not sure that I can do it correctly). It would be very helpful, if you could remove your notifications about «multiple issues» of this article from the page, at least for certain period, because they encourage visitors to take part in editing (I do not wish to have the page as a battlefield at this point). Will be in touch with you during further work on the article.
Thank you,
Vit713828 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
To add the in-use tag, just put {{in use}} at the top of the page (if you're looking at this in code, ignore the nowiki tags, they just prevent the template from popping up on this page. I'm not going to remove the current templates, as they actually add the article to a maintenance queue that can bring in editors to improve the page, and they notify readers of ongoing issues with the page. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. Now, we will see how it works.
Vit713828 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're interested

Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#Saadat_Kadyrova; I think there is a pattern here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that discussion is getting heated, but it seems like the basic arguments made regarding Kadyrova were defensible, at least until you were able to provide additional secondary sources covering Kadyrova's comments. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm just not aware of a constructive way to approach someone who keeps repeating the same things over and over again. I know we should keep our cool, but I also have my limits and I'm at a breaking point. Perhaps I should stop engaging with this user if they're not planning to change their approach. There should be a limit of someone WP:CRUSHing their way on talk discussions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you've identified the correct solution there: once you've made your point, take a step back and proceed to 3O, DRN or an RfC if need be. signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, sorry to bother you, but I had some unexpected difficulties with this user again that I think needs an admin's attention;
1) I did some edits in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh today. After a couple of hours of my editing, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, followed up with this addition among others. No matter how you look at it, the source cited in that edit uses extremely partisan language [9], this doesn't seem to be an improvement. Keep in mind Abrvagl never edited on that article or explained how they found it or happen to be continuing after my edits, just like couple of weeks ago when they "jumped" into a random discussion with me and another user. If these aren't WP:HOUNDING which disrupt my experience as an editor, I don't know what else is.
2) I reverted their edit in Lachin today, which omitted details from the source [10]. I showed them the full quote on talk as well Talk:Lachin#An_Armenian_sergeant (I have the source), and suggested that we either attribute all of it to the source or none of it, since that same source is cited in the article for other info as well which doesn't seem to bother Abrvagl, see Lachin#First_Nagorno-Karabakh_War (29th citation). In response, they misquoted me citing a single phrase out of my sentence, and basically told me that "because" isn't in the source, but somehow their omitted "rephrasing" is better than the original one? The quote is very clear btw and why in sergeant's words (paraphrased and attributed as such on the article) the looting was done, and the original sentence didn't need any omission by Abrvagl. I already asked them to stop quoting me out of context just like they did in AE, this seems to be another example of that, which raises WP:CIR issues.
3) Finally, they repeated the same thing in the above 2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling, asking (again) to reinstate their own edit (which basically means removing Kadyrova) despite not launching the RfC yet or having any consensus, and not agreeing to the simple changes proposed on talk either.
I'm having a very unpleasant and difficult time of editing because of this user; their hounding, their repeated WP:CIR, their misunderstanding (?) of what paraphrasing means and basic English, and so on. Do I really need to open another AE for this? Courtesy pinging Thryduulf. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, I think filing an AE case is the most appropriate way forward--while at a glance the allegations you raise here do seem concerning to me, I'd prefer to evaluate them together with responses from Abrvagl. For the record, I would be willing to act without an AE report if there was something blatantly against the letter of prior warnings or core policies, but the concerns enumerated here don't seem to rise to that level. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Dear Rosguill, I'd want to get your senior opinion, based on your expertise in conflict resolution in AA area. Here I removed Saadat's response because her opinion is not related to official Azerbaijan position. I also wrote a note explaining my edit on the talk page[11]. Soon my edit was reverted[12] with following comments The source says she's Azerbaijani. If you have source(s) disputing this, provide on talk. Long story short, I proved that attributing Saadat's opinion, who is Russian citizen and works for TASS, to Azerbaijan due to her nationality is unacceptable.

Later on, ZaniGiovanni had the proposal to tweak the article's structure and make it a nationality-based response rather than a country-based response. Here is the draft of RfC of proposal [13]. This proposal completely changes structure of the article and has limited relation to Saadat and thus to my edit. I really do not understand why we mixing Saadat into this RfC. I think that RfC will be more efficient without mixing this two cases. Based on RfC outcome's Saadat's opinion always can be properly added back into the article. Do you think that it is right that my good faith edit was reverted, and was not reinstated even after I proved the point, and instead I forced to raise RfC for someone else's proposal?

Please do not get me wrong, it is not about principals and not about how I like it. I agreed to raise RfC and I will(there we delays because I had an emergency surgery recently). I trying to act as per Wikipedia Policies and as far as I concerned - I acted as per policies. Moreover, it feels not right and not fair against me. The reason I contacted you is to get advice on that feeling and my understanding of the policy. I am a human and I can make mistakes. Even if you say that I am wrong about this feeling and explain me - I will happily accept your advice. Thanks in advance! Abrvagl (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl, it looks like the discussion in question was just between you and ZaniGiovanni, which makes it rather hard to evaluate without going through the sources cited in depth, which I do not have time to do right now. If your explanation of the dispute over the inclusion of Saadat's perspective is 100% correct, the stonewalling against your edit would appear to be disruptive editing (again: I haven't reviewed the claims in detail and am not asserting whether it is correct or not at this time).
All that having been said, if you have issues with the framing of the RfC, you should discuss that with ZaniGiovanni and move towards a prompt that gets to the heart of the current editing disputes. If that means creating two separate RfCs for separate questions, there's nothing wrong with that. signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) That statement was in the article for a very long time. Abrvagl opened the discussion as "not a response of Azerbaijan". Number of solutions were proposed to them, even the RfC was formed and handed to them [14] with every option discussed on talk. It would literally take a minute for Abrvagl to copy/paste and open the RfC finally, but they still haven't. They have all the time to edit different articles/talks and hound me though, that's for sure, despite their IRL surgery, but not time to copy/paste the already crafted ready-to-go RfC that was handed to them? What's the meaning of this, I'm so confused.
And in their latest comment, they requested me to reinstate their own edit in favor of the long-standing stable edit, to which I replied that the RfC will conclude what will happen to Kadyrova and the stable edit will remain until then. Not once they elaborated what the problem was with the 3 new sources I first showed on talk despite me asking for them to do multiple times, so after some time, I added the additional sources to the article without changing any text of the stable edit. If this is in any way an issue, Abrvagl was/is welcome to finally show on the talk page what is the problem with those 3 sources and I'll gladly self-revert, but the original text wouldn't be changed in favor of Abrvagl's edit (removal of Kadyrova) until the RfC is over or if they can show some groundbreaking revelation regarding the sources.
This incident of invited journalist Kadyrova was on Russian's second most popular TV channel on a popular talk show, and it caused a lot of controversy in Armenia and to some extent in Russia. There are hundreds of Armenian sources which reported this, but I deliberately choose not to include any in favor of Russian and an English third-party source. It has videos on YouTube, it even has the video segment itself in the original source, I can provide a transcript too if needed, but the sources already cover her statement. The endless cycle of first; "not response from Azerbaijan", "sources bad", "the proposed wording's bad", "will raise RfC", "didn't have time for RfC", and now again "sources bad" (without explaining why exactly my added sources are bad in the talk page) leaves me puzzled and dumbfounded about Abrvagl's motives. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Rosquill, thank you for your prompt and explanatory answer; I understand you are probably busy and have better things to do. However, I would be grateful if you could take some time(when you have a time) to review the case and share your feedback. I will briefly explain dispute, so that you do not need to read wall of text we created on the talk-page.
1. As I said, I removed Saadat's response because her opinion is not related to official Azerbaijan position[15]. I also wrote an explanatory note on the talk page.[16]. Later my edit was reverted by Zani[17] with following comment: The source says she's Azerbaijani. If you have source(s) disputing this, provide on talk.. Then I proved that Saadat is citizen of Russian and works for TASS, and her personal opinion is not official response of Azerbaijan.[18]. Later, I even agreed to move information about Saadat to the International Response section of Azerbaijan[19], but Zani disagreed with proposal.
2. Second part of the dispute is proposal of Zani to change the structure of the article from country oriented to nationalities oriented (i.e. Change Armenia to Armenian and so on.) To save your time, you can review Zani's proposal from draft RfC's points 1-2-3[20].
Now, I say that proved that my edit was justified and it should be reinstated back or Saadat's information shall be moved to the international section with corrected wording. I also say that my edit is not interconnected to the Zani's proposal. Actually RfC will be more efficient if we do not mix Saadat into it, as it will be misleading. Information about Saadat can wait in international section until the end of RfC or put back into article(if removed) depending on the result of RfC. However I am struggling here. I cannot reinstate my edit it myself, as at recent AE I promised myself that I will try not to take edits which may be considered as edit war. Therefore I asking Zani to self-revert. However, Zani do not agree to self-revert. Zani insists that information about Saadat shall stay in the article until completion of the RfC, which for some reason shall be initiated by me, although it is not my proposal and obligation to reach consensus for that is not on me.
This situation does not appear to be complicated to me.This is an instance where the editor combined two unrelated proposals and claims that my edit, which I justified, cannot be reinstated without RfC on his proposal, which is unrelated to my edit. This situation is also not a big deal for me, but as I said earlier this feels not fair and right to me. At the end of the day, all I want to do is to ensure that Wikipedia's policies are followed.
Thanks in advance! Abrvagl (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Abrvagl, Wikipedia etiquette is that once an edit has been objected to, even if it's for reasons that you think are blatantly flawed, you need to obtain affirmative consensus to the change before reimposing it. Armatura and ZG's suggested RfC questions don't seem to be unrelated to the edit: they're proposing a reorganization of the page that they believe better justifies the inclusion of Kadyrova's comments, which means that you can neutrally counterpose three options: 1) keep the status quo 2) remove Kadyrova's comments and otherwise keep status quo 3) adopt the suggested reorganization of the page. signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for prompt response and sorry for dragging you into this. I know what they are proposing, I just believe their proposal is not a stopper for the my edit, which I justified and that their proposal will be more effective if we do not mix this two things. Because if their proposal will succeed, then it will affect to whole article, many stuff them shall be reworded and rearranged, not only Kadyrova. Would it be correct If done with my edit and remove Kadyrova's comments (or place them into international section, if Zani agrees) and then keep status quo(or even support to raise RfC, but without Kadyrova?) Dear ZaniGiovanni, would you agree with that?
P.S. Again thanks for helping us to get out of the dispute loop! Highly appreciated. Abrvagl (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I just don't understand what's the meaning of this. Don't ping me again, I said enough already, both in talk and here. This is just harassment now. You know or rather should know my opinion very well by now. The simple change to Azerbaijani/Armenian was the best solution imo and I told you this multiple times on talk, I even clarified it in my latest comments just for good measure [21]. Yet you still ping me, for what reason exactly, expecting a different response and based on what? I still fail to understand what's your issue with this, and when I say issue I mean a solid argument that would completely disqualify this option. It's even worded in a similar manner in International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Turks). Jesus christ enough already, don't ping me again and launch that RfC for god's sake. You removing the stable edit and Kadyrova's statement has no consensus, so it's not going to happen until a broader community feedback will decide what to do with her (and still not guaranteed, it's entirely up to the outcome).
You can also add your own suggestions in RfC, but I believe every singe one of the discussed versions was there in the latest suggestion, and it's certainly better than the one you initially suggested (which didn't even include your "remove Kadyrova" option, this is what good faith is btw Armatura made sure to include your preferred option as well). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Abrvagl, I think it's pretty clear that you're not going to reach a consensus to reinstate the removal of content about Kadyrova without an RfC. If you really don't think that an RfC including the refactor proposal upfront would be conducive to reaching a consensus, I think that opening an RfC with a simple prompt of Should coverage related to Saadat Kadyrova's statements on Russian television be removed from the article would be sufficient. I could honestly go either way on whether the simple or compound RfC is a better use of our time, but I think that actually opening the RfC, with either set of prompts, would be a marked improvement over any other further discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Rosguill. Your advice was very useful to improve my understanding and find the way out. I think I will stick to simple RFC option, because I truly believe two separate proposals shouldn’t be mixed as one will be lost in another and that will be confusing. Abrvagl (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

in rare cases, deletionism=death

hi rosguill. you've made many nice articles. i do wish you'd lay off militant policing of new redirects --at least from me. clearly, you came across my fat land parrot redirect while checking your own fat men's club article, right? right? oh, yes, admit it. (i thought FMC was a joke until looking, but now i'm won over.) as for mine, i'm taking phrases i hear on tiktok and other young-person platforms and redirecting them to their actual encyclopedic articles. (yo, that's GOOD.) at least i was doing that. now that you're being such a so-and-so, it becomes not-worth my free time. your deletionist effort contributes to the looming extinction of the kakapo, but hey, at least you have some sort of satisfaction to please yourself with. by the time RS you demand for a redirect (what? we need RS for redirects?) appear, by the time NYT or OED put the youth nickname in an article, there will be no kakapo left. think of the dodo bird or the passenger pigeon: there came a time when fewer than 200 individuals of the species remained, and at that point, every person contributing to their demise helped make the species finally EXTINCT. that's you. "thanks" mate. delete away. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Cramyourspam Wikipedia is not a an advocacy website. Also, see condition 8 of WP:R#DELETE. Contrary to what you might believe, the chances of obscure redirects of phrases pulled from "young-person platforms" saving an entire species are unfathomably low. - ZLEA T\C 04:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Naminara Republic

Hi, I notice you tagged Naminara Republic, that can be the first step to deletion. I created the page because it was present in {{Micronations}} with a {{ill}} and there was also redirect pointing to Namiseom but there was no paragraph dealing with it. Of course you can challenge the page and even delete it, but remember to delete also the links.--Carnby (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Carnby, thanks for messaging me, I've gone ahead and merged some of the content to Namiseom and redirected Naminara Republic to it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Drop the stick or not?

Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. In the recent AE, you said "I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious". I checked my talk page today, and apparently Abrvagl has requested a 3rd opinion for a 2 month old discussion and notified on my talk also pinging me on the article. He also said on my talk page the request was done "as per your suggestion"; A) I would never have suggested someone to open a third opinion for a 2-month-old discussion, what I meant was obviously for the time we were in discussion, B) Do you think this is or isn't WP:DROPTHESTICK territory? I didn't comment in AE because I want to hear outside and admin opinion first. I didn't even remember this died out discussion until I was pinged on talk and saw my talk page notification. My replies to that thread were mostly under the section Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage from 2 months ago. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, I don't think it would be appropriate to impose sanctions. The discussion in question does not appear to have ever received outside attention, and thus turning to 3O is a reasonable next step to attempt to form a consensus. The timing may seem odd to you, but that doesn't make it tendentious. signed, Rosguill talk 04:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 12

I am not convinced with the deletion close at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 17#Internet Explorer 12. Please provide your reasoning. Jay (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete votes were in a clear majority, had a valid rationale, and provided a reasonable rebuttal to your retarget suggestion. If you had disputed the rebuttal I would have seen cause to relist, but in the absence of that it seemed like it was fair to call the discussion for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
3 delete votes came before my retarget vote, and one delete came after. None of them were about my suggestion, nor a rebuttal to it. 3 of them talked about the browser version 12, not the redirect title. I don't see how any of them had a valid rationale. 1 of them talked about the current target. None of them attempted to find a solution other than delete. Jay (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I read the second half of the final delete !vote as a rebuttal: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not know if there will ever be an IE 12 or not, so it should be deleted. It's not an airtight argument, but it seemed sufficient to me in context. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see it as a rebuttal, so I didn't respond to it. I didn't think any of the votes were contradicting each other. I felt the weightage of the retarget was more than all the delete votes combined, if not equal. Going by the number of votes here, would not be a proper approach. Jay (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, while I still think my close was reasonable given the information available to me at the time, your further explanations here are enough justification for reopening and relisting the discussion. Shall I go ahead and do that? signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, thanks. Jay (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Jet Jaguar

Hiya. Thanks for that one - I spent ages looking at it wondering quite what to do - there's already a redirect from Draft:Jet Jaguar so draftifying (my go to action) wasn't an option, and yet I baulked at a blank and redirect - and tagging wasn't the solution as it was indeed 100% unreferenced and mostly content from the parent article. So I watched it and moved on to wait for someone more sensible to make a call. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Universal suffrage 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 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The truth is out there

Howdy! Please take a look at [22]. This is an extraordinary number of net-negative links over a short period of time by someone with a username that we both know raises a flag. I have three urgent deadlines in the next 24 hours and can't track this. Can you please look into this? Merci beaucoup! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, 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.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • 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.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_30&oldid=1107970438"