User talk:Rosguill/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Why do only I have to follow the guidelines of WP:GSAA

I was blocked from editing Wikipedia for 2 days, forbidden from discussing the deletion of an article I wrote, got multiple warnings and gopt threatened with my account being blocked because "I broke WS:GSAA" when I just added a flag into an article and edited on an article that is not mentioned as WS:GSAA. However, others can freely and for a long time edit on the topic with even less edits than me with zero consequences whatsoever. Also, the only people that are against the articles I wrote are Armenians using the "government propaganda" argument for anything. Also, why are only Azerbaijanis being met with restrictions and consquences hwen violating, but I never saw any Armenian getting the same treatment? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination ~~ Viceskeeni2 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s plainly inaccurate to say that you are the only one being affected by these restrictions; you can see a full list of affected pages and accounts at WP:GS/AA itself and WP:AELOG. Infractions are addressed as they are reported. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

User AlenVaneci is editing on the topic multiple times although he doesn't even have 1/5 of the needed edits to edit on that topics Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I've issued them a final warning, as I find the prior warnings issued to be somewhat lacking: ({{alert/first}} was not correctly invoked, the a-a code needs to be added to the first parameter in order to display the relevant text, and the following warning from Nemoralis was excessively confrontational. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you Rosguill, but it seems that Viceskeeni2 is now trying to bypass the WP:GS/AA through proxy editing / WP:CANVASSING [1]. Perhaps one ought to ask Viceskeeni2 who this "Armenian user" that "spread misinformation" is. The accusation is likely directed at @KhndzorUtogh:, who is quite popular on Reddit right now (welcome to the club) if you search their name. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to bypass it,I thought it was allowed to ask others to edit because I saw someone else do it before. Right after I was told that that's Canvassing I immediately apologized and promised that I'll refrain from it, which I did and do. Again: I'm sorry for doing it because I didn:t clearly know it's unpermissible. After getting my warning, I immediately stopped. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're right [2] - my bad. Anyways, may I ask who this Armenian user is? HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Like you already said, it was KhndzorUtogh. I edited on my IP because I thought those accounts didn't have the restriction and those special edits were a dorn in my eye. However, after finding out that it's restricted (I took some time to process it because I thought y'all meant I should stop revisioning the edits an account that violated the restriction made), I (again) stopped editing and brought the topic to the talk pages of each article because I was told so. And also, the edits were indeed agenda-pushing, nationalistic and false reports with sources being taken out of context, victims and attackers literally being swapped in one event, edits with sources where the source mentioned NOTHING mentioned in the edit and calling Monte Melkonian a revolutionary hero on an article that's supposed to be neutral (you can call him hero on the Armenian page idc). Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Damn, I should become a detective instead of a physiotherapist! I also found your still blocked IP (2 weeks for using Wikipedia as a battleground), mentioning the exact same about Melkonian [3]. In other words, you're not only violating WP:ASPERSIONS / WP:NPA against KhndzorUtogh (not the first time, I can see you have done it at least once before [4]), but also evading your block (WP:BLOCKEVASION). HistoryofIran (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

How am I evading my block? The block said that I can't use that IP on anonymous edits, this ain't an anonymous edit. Evading my block would be if I log onto another account when my different account is blocked, my account isn't blocked and I don't have any other blocked account. Also I didn't violate it because I provided proof and reasons for it multiple times. Also, when an Armenian made the same attacks against me suddenly it wasn't a problem, but now when it's the other way around it is? I thought discrimination wasn't allowed on Wikipedia? And why is it a problem when I mention the Melkonian-topic. Why is it allowed to depict him as a hero on English Wikipedia? Anyone can be depicted as a hero then. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's literally mentioned in the second sentence "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Your IP got blocked, then you resumed editing on your account. And please drop the discrimination card (this is the second time you're using it in this thread), the users here couldn't care less whether you're Azeri or Kryptonian. The fact that you're trying to justify the stuff that got your IP blocked says more than enough. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vũ Minh Hiếu (footballer)

The article Vũ Minh Hiếu (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER, WP:INCDAB, WP:ORPHAN.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

prod Bor Skate Plaza FYI

{{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Bor Skate Plaza}}

Hello, you made some early edits to this page so I wanted to notify you. Thank you for your work. ~~~ Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agnieszka653, I did not create this article and am not sure why you are notifying me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Tinio Brigade

Hi Rosguill, I need your help regarding this article. It was created a couple of months ago but had no sources, so I draftified it with the script, which tagged the redirect for speedy deletion automatically. The user who originally created it removed the deletion tags and created the article again instead of waiting for the draft to be moved to mainspace. Now if I go to my articles created list, it shows up under my name when it's not supposed to. Since I haven't created it, I want it to be removed, but I don't know how to do it because I'm afraid if I tag it for deletion, it'll still show up under my name but in the deletion section. Can you please help me with that? Thanks! Waqar💬 16:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Iwaqarhashmi, I've gone ahead and restored the article to mainspace, as its bibliography was decent, in particular [5]. This makes the page history of the cut and paste split moot. The page really should not have been draftified in the first place and I'm puzzled as to why you decided to take that action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There was a misunderstanding in the initial assessment and draftifying the article was an oversight. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and thank you so much for helping me out by restoring it to mainspace. Waqar💬 17:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 04:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Restore autopatrolled user rights

Hello, hope you are doing well. Could you please restore my autopatrolled user rights? Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see a reason for doing this: 4/5 of your most recent articles have been deleted at AfD, and the most recent one was approved but tagged for several issues. In general, you've hardly edited since the permissions were removed, and I'm not seeing any acknowledgement of the past UPE concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Voisava Kastrioti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since you are an admin involved in AE stuff, I would like to raise my concern about the frequent edit warring on Voisava Kastrioti. The article is freuqently a subject of edit warring, ususally involving multiple editors. Would you consider placing some revert restriction on the article, such as an AE-logged 1RR? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I've added the page to my watchlist, will deliver CTOP notices to people who haven't received one. While I agree that there's been excessive reverting, given the variety of different editors involved, the age of the accounts, and that most instances are just a single undo, I'm not seeing a quick fix measure that would clearly help. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks, keeping an eye on the article is great. I would also ask for your attention at that edit summary by Khirurg, to whom you have given an AE-logged warning against making accusations of nationalistic editing without evidence [6]. I don't agree with the changes made by RoyalHeritageAlbanian, but their edit is certainly not nationalistic. It concerns wording that has been a concern for multiple editors of different backgrounds. This actuallyis part of a pattern of making personal attacks in edit summaries by Khirurg, e.g. "get a life and learn to properly count reverts, stalker". In a wider context, keeping an eye on the civiliy of editors on the Voisava article might be as valuable as preventing the edit warring itself. Personal attacks unfortunately have been made by various editors before as well in disputes on Voisava. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: On the subject of the disruptive edit by RoyalHeritageAlb, the evidence is the edit itself and the misleading edit-summary used. It's a pretty obvious attempt at removing undesirable information (that the mother of the Albanian national hero Skenderbeg was in fact Serbian), precisely the type of disruption that plagues the article practically non-stop. And everyone involved knows this full well, which is why no one has reverted my edit, despite all the concerns about "civility". On the subject of civility, which Ktrimi seems so concerned about, let's not forget this lol Don't worry, not everyone "hides" things. lol by Ktrimi, while he was edit-warring [7] [8]. Laughing and mocking other users in edit summaries is highly incivil, as it poisons the atmosphere and makes reaching a compromise that much harder. Rosguill, as I'm sure you are aware as well, I've lost count how many times Ktrimi or someone from the same group editors that edits the same topics from the same POV has come to your talkpage for block-fishing. I've been editing this encyclopedia for over 17 years, and as you can see I have acquired many enemies who continuously try to find a "gotcha", but while avoiding ANI or AE, where their own behavior would come under scrutiny. Khirurg (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

he was edit-warring with whom were I "edit warring"? With you. And you know full well I did not "mock" you; I just responded to your claim that my edit was "hiding" information to readers, a claim which you had done multiple times in the past as well. Anyways, I was not asking for a block above; I did mention your personal attack against RHA as the latest example of PA breaches on Voisava so Rosguill is aware that edit warring is not the only issue concerning the article. You are not the only one there in recent months to have breached the civility policy while editing or discussing Voisava. If I were to seek sanctions on you personally, I would report you at AE. Rosguill themselves have made it clear in the past that they are not willing to sanction reports posted on this tp. as you can see I have acquired many enemies It is such a pity that you think fellow editors are "enemies". We are here to build a better encyclopedia for the readers, we are not at war. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Rosguill, I don't want this to turn into a wall of text, so I will not respond again. My request for you is, if you are willing, to keep an eye on the Voisava Kastrioti article for both edit warring (be it "slow" or blatant 3RR breaches) and civility issues. The article has had enough of both, and admin attention is long overdue. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

(ec) It's pretty obvious what you came here to try and get, so let's not pretend. But yes, I do agree that the article really needs admin attention. Stuff like this [9] really needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you did bring that edit up. I removed content that did not concern Voisava and Barleti, and later made an edit that ended the dispute between multiple editors after suitable sources were found. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Because it's part of the same pattern of disruption, identical in spirit as RHA's edit - removal of "undesirable" information, even though it's well sourced and long-standing. It keeps happening, there and in many other articles as well. Khirurg (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, for the record. a pretty obvious attempt at removing undesirable information (that the mother of the Albanian national hero Skenderbeg was in fact Serbian) RHA did not remove the theory of Serb origin; the section continued to mention the possibility of her being a member of the Brankovic family. You can disagree with the edit (as I do), but you can't call it "nationalistic POV-pushing". Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

(ec) He explicitly removed the word "Serbian", in spite of the multitude of sources in the article (and more that could be added), with a misleading edit-summary on top of that. It doesn't get worse than that, really. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As comment within this post [10] in relation to me was mentioned, my thoughts are this. @Khirurg, a Wikipedian of 17 years continues with poor engagement with editors instead of cordial or neutral interaction. Even in this thread, Khirurg considers some editors as "enemies" [11]. Rosguill, it may explain the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavoir @Khirurg brings to editing Wikipedia and keeps reappearing time and time again. Looking at some of @Khirurg's edit history, these flare ups happen or are triggered with editors who either edit the Albanian space or Turkish space and related topical articles. It appears there is a pattern, something that has gone on for nearly two decades. Whether or not further action is needed is up to administrators. Within the General sanctions list, for the WP:BALKANS, a suggestion for this case would be an interaction ban between @RoyalHeritageAlb and @Khirurg to try and prevent this poor behavoir. Or banning both from editing the Balkans topic area completely, as as been done with other past editors. One hopes there is improvement on the part of all editors with the maturity of time, as editing in the Balkan space is complicated enough. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOUND, WP:ASPERSIONS. WP:BATTLEGROUND applies to editors making baseless accusations and generating drama, such as yourself here. Looking at some of @Khirurg's edit history, these flare ups happen or are triggered with editors who either edit the Albanian space or Turkish space and related topical articles. I could just easily say the same thing about you, Ktrimi991, and RoyalHeritageAlb (and many others) with regards to the Greek and Serbian topic space. When you left that invalid warning on my talkpage (I only had one revert), why didn't you do the same at Ktrimi's talkpage? When editors are civil and collaborative, I have an easy time reaching a compromise [12]. Considering how closely you follow me around and watch my talkpage, didn't you see that? The problem is always with the same group of editors, not me. You should be sanctioned for making groundless accusations and purposely misleading one-sided statements.Khirurg (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.