Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Rosguill

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 07:02, 26 August 2023 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from User talk:Rosguill) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Heavy metal in Islamic countries

I just noticed your close on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Heavy metal in Islamic countries. Though I am obviously the nominator on this, I don't see how in the discussion's current state how it would not result in a "no consensus" close or a relist. The "comment" by Duckmather seemed to bring up a potential WP:REDLINK and ambiguous issues with the redirect's title, and my comment on the aforementioned comment chain indirectly contradicted Jay's "keep" stance. For these reasons, I'm just not seeing a "keep" close in this discussion's current state. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Steel1943, I read Duckmather's as an ultimately neutral comment, raising notes about the page's history and the continued inclusion of some amount of relevant, sourced content at the target in addition to raising WP:REDYES concerns. I found Uanfala and Jay's arguments to be reasonable. Your position as expressed in the last threaded comment in the discussion seems to be that readers searching for "heavy metal in Islamic countries" are not interested in "heavy metal in Muslim countries". This did not persuade anyone in the discussion, and in the absence of any indication from you in the discussion as to what the potential confusion or intended-target would be for Muslim vs. Islamic in this context, it seemed reasonable to close in favor of keep. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Eh ... I don't agree with the fact that no one in the discussion being persuaded by my comment (and/or responding to it) to be considered a reason to invalidate the comment for consensus forming, considering the comment essentially negated one of the "keep" votes, but eh, whatever. I suppose if I see this redirect again in 3+ years, I'll give it another go. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm honestly perplexed that you're still standing by the argument regarding Muslim vs. Islamic, and am trying to figure out why it makes sense to you, as from my perspective it seems incredibly farfetched. You stated It cannot be assumed that all readers make an exclusive, synonymous connection between the words "Islamic" and "Muslim". In fact, I can tell you for a fact that I don't, and honestly have no interest to discover the connection between the two words. The first statement is nominally true, but isn't really relevant to the redirect; the question at hand is not whether "all readers see an exclusive and synonymous connection between Islam and Muslim" but rather whether "ANY readers see an overlap between these topics AND are there no topics whose access is obscured by the imprecise use of 'Islamic' here". Your second assertion in the quote, that you see no possible connection between Islamic and Muslim seems unreasonable: while Islamic most precisely refers to the religion and Muslim most precisely refers to the people who practice the religion, it is extremely common for English speakers to colloquially use them interchangeably. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The simple solution here was for someone to include the word "Islam[ic]" in the article somewhere in proper context. But eh, I stand by my point since I'm not convinced that it can be assumed everyone knows of or understands that connection. But oh well, the discussion is closed, and you explained the reason for your close well, so I appreciate that. (But that last comment you made almost makes your close sound like a WP:SUPERVOTE, but since I'm familiar with your work here, I can confidently WP:AGF.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I understand your perspective more now. While I stand by the close, it seems that you could likely address your remaining concern by finding a non-contrived way to sneak "Islam" or "Islamic" into the paragraph at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Precisely! 😀 Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems like it could fit in the first sentence by rewording it toIn some predominantly Muslim countries, heavy metal has been officially denounced as a threat to traditional Islamic values". signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
That may work. If you feel confident adding that to the article, I'd say go for it. (I just couldn't do it myself since me understanding the connection is still ... a bit of an oblivious point for me; if I make an edit, I must be confident enough to defend it.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

SPI/Treywrighteous

Just to notify you I've completed the CU request (I can't figure out the @ function on my legacy format). Will let you make the final admin decision on the two users based on the result. Hope that helps. - Mailer Diablo 20:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
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) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

BARNSTARS FOR MORALE!!!

The Original Barnstar
I'm giving out Barnstars to random people to boost Wiki morale!!! If you want to help me, copy and paste the following code!


{{subst:The Original Barnstar|1= I'm giving out Barnstars to random people to boost Wiki morale!!! If you want to help me, copy and paste the following code! }(Stop here and add second bracket to the end) ~~JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic~~ ~~JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic~~ JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic, I don't think this is a worthwhile use of your time, along the lines of User:Gwillhickers/Trivializing and misuse of awards. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Again, I said I was just trying to boost morale. ~~JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic~~ JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Legality of cannabis 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 00:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Nagol0929

Nagol0929 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are certainly enjoying NPR tool as they are doing reviews for pay. Check this SEO spam review and review of Christian Villi based on this job post. This user is a long term UPE, so please do a due diligence before granting them NPR permanently. 2001:8F8:1E3D:1F36:6B0F:9DAD:F56F:229C (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

IP, the job posting you've listed is shown as private. The Pyti review is concerning, however. signed, Rosguill talk 03:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Missed one

Hey Rosguill. Thank you for processing my requests at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. It looks like one of the requests you accepted, Superb Owl, was not actually added to the redirect autopatrol list Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ope, thanks for catching that. Fixed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estimated percent of households with guns by country 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 05:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Air Milford

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Air Milford. 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. ThumperOP (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Adoption?

Hi @Rosguill! I'm a relatively new user, but I'm approaching 500 edits, was hoping to get some mentorship and guidance, and stumbled across the Adopt-A-User page. I feel like I have a decent grasp of basic Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but I know there's a lot I'm missing and I often have questions about particular processes and practices. Apart from learning more, my current goals are (1) to get involved in DRN and (2) draft or rewrite a GA-quality article. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Voorts, feel free to stop by with questions. Regarding your current goals, for DRN I would recommend participating in some of the other consensus-building processes on Wikipedia, such as WP:3O and WP:RFC, as well as watchlisting the DRN page so that you get a sense of how discussions are conducted there. For getting an article to GA-quality, I think the best guidance available is already laid out at WP:GACR and relevant pages linked from there. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hi Rosguill, I hope you're doing well. I have pinged you yesterday to look into the issue of disruptive behaviour by another editor. I don't know if you have received a notification. Please, if you refuse to intervene (which is understandable) just let me know so i can take other measures. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Rosguill,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

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

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell 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 18:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

NPR request

Hi, last month you accepted my request to be a new page reviewer for a one month trial, which has since expired. I put in another request after the trial stopped, but it has gone unanswered for four days. I was wondering if there's a different way I should request the permission because I've already had it, or if others have just been too busy to see it. Thanks! greyzxq talk 16:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Greyzxq, your request is in the right place, I or someone else should review it soon. I don't think I've seen a request go unanswered for more than 7 days lately. signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, just thought I'd make sure. Thanks again! greyzxq talk 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

DXNG-FM

Hi there. When I sent this to AfD, it did not add the AfD template to the article, so I re-did it. Now the template is on the article, but there are two discussions at AfD. Could you please delete one of them? Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 09:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done, I deleted the second nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
As always, thanks for your help. Onel5969 TT me 22:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights 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 00:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Your signature

There your username does not appear in your signature, and without looking at the page's editing history it is impossible to tell who made the comment. Idk if you did that intentionally or it is unintentional. If the latter is the case, you might want to fix it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I included a fifth tilde by accident. My keyboard isn't what it used to be and makes some creative additions to my writing at times. signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

NPR

Hello sir, Please examine my contributions, and if you think I qualify, give me the chance to review new pages for a trial month to see whether I'm up to the task. As an AfC reviewer, I am knowledgeable about the CSD, XFD, PROD, GNG, SNG, and BLP policies. I believe this will help Wikipedia obtain a quality reviewer in the future. DreamRimmer (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Good day, sir, please take a moment to check my contributions. DreamRimmer (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Requested at WP:PERM. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying to this earlier--your request at PERM should get reviewed within a week. signed, Rosguill talk 14:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Close of Nowhere differentiable

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 16#(Continuous) nowhere differentiable function: Can you fix this asap? Retargeted to a wrong target. Jay 💬 07:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You may have logged out for the day. I waited a couple of hours and have reverted the close, and reverted the changes in 11 pages. Jay 💬 10:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Jay, oops, keyboard failure there. I've reclosed with the correct target now. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 NPP Drive Award

The Reviewer Barnstar

This award is given to Rosguill for collecting more than 200 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Etienne Mermer

I've redirected to Vanuatu national football team (as a possible search term), which people seem to forget that's an option at AfD. He seemed to be somewhat a bit of an important figure in the Island's national football and seems to do a lot for them. I thought I saw enough for WP:BASIC, so I am surprised with the delete verdict. Alas, I guess that happens know. All the best, Govvy (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Govvy, regarding the redirect creation, I don't have any issues with it. I know some editors have raised concerns that redirecting a player to a team can be an example of a costly redirect to maintain, but I would think that's less true of a national squad. As far as the close of the AfD discussion, if there had been a detailed defense of the depth of sourcing against the analyses describing it as fleeting I would have evaluated the discussion differently. signed, Rosguill talk 15:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgotten baby syndrome

Hello! I just wanted to give you a heads up that I did a partial revert of one of your edits, in case you wanted to revert or discuss on the talk page. The article you mentioned did lead with mentioning the number of U.S. deaths, but, on the second page, it mentioned studies of Brazilian and Italian cases, though it didn't have a year cap on them, so I was cheating a bit (I figured if there were dozens in the U.S. and some amount per year in other places, it was fair to say dozens of incidents globally—arguably a WP:SYNTH issue depending on how you view the basic math/count exception.) Still, to be safe, I reinserted the sentence but added citations to each study (and a couple more) rather just rely on the Lee-Kelland & Finlay study. It's ... really hard to read as a diff, but here's the diff: I'd suggest just scrolling to the explanatory note towards the bottom of the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Jerome Frank Disciple thanks for following up on this, I think the compound note is a good solution. My concern from the math of the original edit (in addition to having missed the relevant mention you found) was that the global total could potentially be significantly larger (i.e. hundreds instead of dozens), or else this could be a uniquely common US phenomenon that would be misleading to generalize to the world, even if "dozens" remained accurate. With the addition of the note, my concerns are addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

ImportGenius Notability Tag

Hey, hoping this isn't weird. I've been working on that ImportGenius article, mostly because the IPhone redirect didn't make too much sense considering the more recent press coverage related to the war between Russia and Ukraine. It seems that they're infrequently the sole focus of an article, but they're often the sole source of data and/or analysis mentioned in the article.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chinese-drones-still-support-russias-war-in-ukraine-trade-data-show-cd39d40b https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/business/economy/russia-airlines-sanctions-ukraine.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/russian-gold-is-in-hands-of-obscure-firms-as-jpmorgan-hsbc-exit Just to assess, do you think these articles are noteworthy in relation to ImportGenius? I don't think the inclusion of them as a source is trivial in the recent coverage, the content seems non-routine and independent. Any thoughts? I'll keep editing the article for now but I'd like to know what you think about the notability here.

Finbee (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Finbee, no problem (although typically new discussions go at the bottom of the page). Unfortunately, I hit a paywall for those sources and can't evaluate them so I'm not much use here. If you can quote some relevant parts I can give an opinion though. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
"Dozens of logistics firms and merchants that are small players in the gold sector have since taken over the Russian bullion trade, according to data from trade-tracking firm ImportGenius based on Russian customs figures for six months through August. And instead of massive shipments going to London to sit in vaults of top bullion banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and HSBC Holdings Plc, Russian supplies are heading piecemeal to places like the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong and Turkey, where there are no restrictions. (...) The gap left has been filled by companies like VPower Finance Security (Hong Kong) Ltd., which says it moves cash and gold for some of China’s biggest banks. It handled more than $300 million of Russian gold shipments through Hong Kong in March through August 2022, ImportGenius data show. (...)Turkey has become another key destination, with about $305 million of Russian gold passing through Istanbul airport in the March-August period, ImportGenius data show." - From the Bloomberg article.
"The data, which was compiled and analyzed by Import Genius, a U.S.-based trade data aggregator, shows that tens of millions of dollars of aircraft parts were sent to Russian airlines explicitly facing sanctions by the Biden administration, including to Rossiya Airlines, Aeroflot, Ural Airlines, S7 Airlines, Utair Aviation and Pobeda Airlines.(...) The shipments also increased over the course of last year as Russia recruited global businesses to help it bypass the sanctions. The trend suggests that “networks for evading sanctions took time to establish during the immediate post-export-control scramble but are now in a position to help Russian airlines source some key parts,” said William George, the director of research at Import Genius. (...) Half a dozen export control lawyers and former government officials consulted by The New York Times said that many of the shipments in the Import Genius data likely violated sanctions, but that plane makers like Boeing or Airbus were not necessarily at fault. The aviation supply chain is complex and global, and the parts could have come from a variety of sources. " - The New York Times one
"More than a year after Western authorities sought to shut down the pipeline supplying Russia in its war in Ukraine, exports of small, nimble Chinese drones are still providing the Kremlin with an effective way to target Ukrainian forces, according to Western officials, security analysts and customs data. (...) The Wall Street Journal viewed Russian customs records provided by ImportGenius, a trade database firm, and C4ADS, a Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in identifying national-security threats. (...) Some drones and drone parts were delivered through the European Union after the war started, according to trade data and the Dutch government." - the aforementioned Wall Street Journal piece.
The Bloomberg and NYT piece seem to have substantive coverage, but maybe not the WSJ one as they only mention ImportGenius by name once and simply refer to "customs data" for the rest of the article.
Finbee (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Finbee, I wouldn't consider this significant coverage (although I would consider it WP:USEBYOTHERS, which would establish it as a reliable source). Ultimately, the only information that these sources give us about the company is that they provide international trade records and are based in the US. signed, Rosguill talk 22:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
They'd be reliable sources for an article, but not good sources for notability then? I do kind of wonder though, if their product is data, and the articles are about their data, does that mean that the articles are about their product? There's some sources that cover the actual website itself but I'm mixed on their reliability.
https://news.co.cr/import-genius-brings-big-data-to-costa-rica-imports-and-exports/18244/ -- Seems to be derived from a press release, credible outlet, The Costa Rica Star
https://www.bus-ex.com/article/alibaba-and-importgenius-announce-important-tie -- Trade Magazine, half about Alibaba.
https://techcrunch.com/2008/05/28/importgenius-the-disruptive-shipping-database/ -- Entirely original and focused solely on ImportGenius, probably significant, published by TechCrunch.
https://spendmatters.com/2008/05/29/are-you-an-importgenius-or-should-you-go-straight-to-the-source/ -- Trade Journal, probably not notable even if they are the focus.
https://freakonomics.com/2008/06/amazing-new-trade-data/ -- Blog post, not reliable.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tracking-back-school-orders-stack-175852444.html -- Data/Analysis appears to entirely credited to ImportGenius, with the majority of the article being charts with their logo on them, again, not about the company, but about the data/analysis. Finbee (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The bar for WP:NCORP is high. As for the data being their product, deriving notability from these sources' use of the product would be analogous to deriving notability for the NYT's paper supplier; it's a sign of quality, but it's not a basis for an encyclopedic article. signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Even if the analysts mentioned in the articles the originating sources for the article? Finbee (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Correct. I would suggest looking at Google Scholar, Google Books, and Jstor to see if any scholarly or government publications have written about them. signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Close of User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config

Regarding the closure here, I think you have it the other way around - Template:User MiszaBot/Config was the one which was voted as a delete, and User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config was the one that had discussion about being turned into a wrapper or something else (and should therefore be the no consensus one). Aidan9382 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, fixed now. signed, Rosguill talk 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review - thanks and a question

Thanks for reviewing the biography of Evelyn Mary Macdonald at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Mary_Macdonald

Where is the review? Sorry, this feels like a stupid question. I've not been able to find the review. If the review contains suggestions for improvement, I would like to review the feedback and make the changes. If Macdonald's entry is acceptable, then great and thanks for your time. Thanks. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no written review, apologies for the confusion! As the article passes notability guidelines and does not have any significant issues that would require tagging, I've marked it reviewed to let it out of the new pages queue and release it for indexing to search engines. Reviewers typically also do minor cleanup and tagging for WP:Wikiprojects. You can read more about new page reviewing here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - great to know that it's OK. Only my second entry so a bit concerned and still learning. I will read about the new page reviewing process. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Hello,

I just wanted to bring up that I did not accuse anyone of a nationalistic POV, but rather Khirurg. I claimed that he often reverts edits without discussing and have tried to prove that by clear and convincing evidence.

Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

While you did not bandy about the phrase "nationalistic editing", what led me to issue the warning was the unproductive back and forth between you and Khirurg, and that uninvolved editors felt that the evidence you presented in the original complaint should be resolved as a content dispute. For evidence of tendentious stonewalling to be persuasive, you need to provide examples of the other editor disputing obvious consensus to that end--a disagreement between the two of you is pretty much never going to rise to the level of immediate sanctions unless there is obvious fabrication of sources involved. signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to make a question. Khirurg keeps accusing other editors who he is in content disputes with off "tag-teaming" without any evidence, although he has been asked to not do that many times. Last time he did that was yesterday [1]. If he makes tag-teaming claims without evidence, is it considered a personal attack covered by the warning you issued? I ask because for me it has been difficult to discuss in content disputes where Khrirug is involved because of the tag-teaming accusations. Durraz0 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Durraz0, yes it is an unproductive casting of aspersions, although I would consider it a milder accusation than what was being levied in the discussion involving AlexBachmann. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Best regards. Durraz0 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

(unindent) @Rosguill: Speaking of aspersions, here is a small sample of what I am regularly subjected to:

This is just a small sample from recent days, but I could go on and on, it's basically non-stop at this point. There a number of things I want to work on, but I basically can't because I am consistently sidetracked with stuff like this. I can just easily provide examples of tag-teaming behavior, for example here [2]. If you look at the contribs history of the accounts removing the info, they all have something in common. I had previously filed at ANI giving a massive amount of evidence, but it seems it was filibustered [3]. I am a veteran editor and I don't make accusations lightly. But there is much more to the story than what the above editors are telling you. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Khirurg, you were blocked for personal attacks in 2021 after you did not listen to an admin's warning that your "tag-teaming" claims are a personal attack[4]. After the block expired you have repeated the claim many times. You need to stop that now. Regards. Durraz0 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not accusing anyone of tag-teaming, but I was accused of not presenting evidence and would merely like to show that there is evidence. And you know full well that that block was not for tag-teaming accusations. You tried again a few months later [5], but were told off [6]. This is now the third time you post about me to an admin's talkpage, despite few contribs overall, why are you so interested in me and what is it you want? Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Should we really go into that WP:CIVIL thing again? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
For the record. I reported Khirurg twice in the past. The first ended up with a block for personal attacks which Khirurg had made against me and another editor. In the second report the admin said he did not want to get involved in that case. Also two days ago Khriurg made the same "tag-teaming" claim on the talk page of an article during a content dispute [7]. Given that it was not an ANI/I or AE with diffs but in the middle of a content dispute, that is an aspersion. Until Khirurg proves his "tag-teaming" claims at ANI/I (which means admins decide he is right about "tag-teaming"), I think he does not have the right to make that claim against other editors in content disputes. I think I am done here. I planned to make a question to Rosguil alone and not get involved in a long discussion. Thanks. Durraz0 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

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

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello @Rosguill. Genuine question, a source says that Ilyas Gorchkhanov (the first leader of Ingush Jamaat who held his position up until his death in 2005) is subordinated to "Akhmad" (Akhmad Evloev, also known as Ali Taziev. Does this mean that Ingush Jamaat is part of ChRI? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes, the source stating that Gorchkhanov was subordinated to the "emir and commandant of ChRI's Ingush sector" means that they were part of the ChRI command structure, at least for the June 2004 raid, according to that source. signed, Rosguill talk 13:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Additional 2 questions. If there's source regarding the result, which clearly indicates the victory as Chechen-Ingush, then how can this still matter of an argument? I'm talking about this source which supports my version: "The same year, the Chechen and Ingush militants carried out a successful raid on the Russian interior forces in Nazran, Ingushetia, killing 80 troops". I also don't understand how is adding text about Ingush militants in the lead-section giving undue weight when reliable sources, first of all mention them, and separate and differentiate them from the Chechen militants. Sorry for bothering you with all of this, but I just have to hear third party's opinion on this matter. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems like it's probably a question of balance across multiple sources. Having previously looked at some of the sources involved at that article, my sense is that part of the confusion among sources is that some of the sources use "Chechen(s)" as a shorthand for ChRI, as derived from "Chechen Republic" irrespective of the ethnicity of individuals affiliated with it. Depending on the relative balance of coverage across sources, it may or may not be appropriate to describe it as Chechen-Ingush, or alternatively as just "Separatist victory", dropping the ethnic/national designation. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
And how do you achieve that "balance"? Sorry, I'm just not understanding this undue weight thing well. I added 6 (5 were English and 1 was Russian) reliable sources for the text "Ingush militants" so shouldn't there be no longer undue weight as it isn't a minority viewpoint? These sources pretty much state the same, that is, the raid was done by Chechen and Ingush militants/fighters. They don't state that Ingush militants were merely a small portion of the main Chechen group as Ola is trying to make it seem like that by moving the text to Attacks section and wording it as "The attacking force had some Ingush militants". WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
At that point it becomes an editorial discussion of how best to represent the claims--there aren't any universal rules when it comes to assessing things like this, and considerations can include the relative strength of sources, the extent to which they describe the group as a whole as having an ethnic or national character.
In particular, since it seems like a primary point of dispute is the characterization of the "victory" belonging to one group or another, the most important detail is how the sources describe the battle and result in summary or in passing: when referring to the ChRI/IJ forces, do they say "Chechen forces", "separatist forces", "Chechen-Ingush forces", etc.? Which usage is more common across sources, taking into account the relative strength of each source? Even if the description in those phrases may be at odds with details of the group's composition as given elsewhere in the same or other sources, it is this summary usage that should guide our terminology when we are giving similar summary judgments (and details are saved for the body of the article). signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment

On the 2001 Insurgency in Macedonia RfC. Which WikiProjects could have interested editors in giving a well-thought opinion? The Military History wikiproject has already been notified, without any input from its members so far. Also, would you consider giving your own opinion there? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I can't think of any other WikiProjects per-se, although WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN may be good places to notify. I'll look through the sources again and comment when I get a chance. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try WP:NPOVN. Maybe someone there will find the RfC interesting. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Notrealname1234 (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #74601

denies UPE. Can you offer me guidance/insight? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, the editor ignored and deleted COI disclosure requests back in 2020, sockpuppeted to dodge the block the first time around, and engaged in a pattern of writing short stubs about a wide range of non-notable businesspersons. My sense is that their only route back to a third chance would be SO (which I guess they've completed) coupled with an editing restriction against creating new BLPs (or something equivalent to keep them from the prior pattern of suspicious editing). signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
So it looks like we are moving toward restoring talk page access. However, the subtext at UTRS is a return to what they were doing. I'll let them know about not creating new BLP's -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
"I just thought of adding a new article on Wikipedia as an informational purpose," really takes my breath away. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and tp disruption

Hi Rosguill. Some days ago you gave AE-logged warnings to Khirurg and AlexBachmann for personal attacks against each other. If you look at their editing history, they are edit warring over several articles with each other. They are also exchanging accusations on articles' talk pages and edit summaries, or making other off-topic comments. Some instances. I think that that edit summary with unproven WP:STALK accusations is far a from what is expected from editors in a content dispute. An admin noted on the talk page of Greece that AlexBachmann breached WP:POINT with their edit [8] as a "tit-for-tat" edit and called it an unhealthy battleground approach to editing. Khirurg , however, added unproven accusations of WP:STALK and WP:CIR [9]. Repeatedly accusing another editor in content disputes of stalking and lack of competence without proper evidence are very serious personal attacks. Khirurg keeps responding to AlexBachmann with accusations. The general discussion there does not seem concentrated on the content dispute itself. On Fier there is another inflammatory edit summary by Khirurg [10]. They are reverting each other on multiple articles. I think that an admin should take a look because this is becoming more and more unhelpful for other editors. Durraz0 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted AlexBachmann exactly once in the last two weeks [11], where I felt he was stalking me. So they are edit warring over several articles with each other is false. Regarding WP:STALK, yes, it is my belief that AlexBachmann did stalk me to that page, as he reverted me within minutes, at an article he had never edited before. Am I supposed to not say anything if I feel I am being stalked? What am I supposed to do, just shut up and do nothing about it? What is WP:STALK for, then? I find it disturbing that you find the accusation of WP:STALK worse than the actual stalking behavior itself. It's as if you really really want me blocked. And the WP:CIR comes from the fact that he does not appear to understand the meaning of the word "civilization" [12], and numerous other incompetent edits such as these [13] (no admins decided anything, nor do admins decide on content disputes), or this [14] (poor sourcing). At Ioannina, he wasted the community's time for a month trying to add the Albanian name to the lede, and despite editors explaining to him that his google searched were flawed [15], he kept insisting. Because he didn't like a sentence at Albania [16], he kicked up a fuss at Greece in retaliation [17]. In addition to the obvious WP:BATTLE behavior pointed out by Future Perfect, the sentence he is proposing is extremely poorly worded, showing lack of competence. The Arvanites, Vlachs, Pomaks, he wants added to the lede are not "civilizations", they are minorities. Yes, there are competence issues here. So yes, I have been short with this user at times, because my patience with them is nearly exhausted. Even now at Talk:Greece, he refuses to let go, even though the sentence he objected to at Albania was changed. Lastly, Durraz0, I note this is the fourth time you post at an admin's page about me, and it is also obvious from the tone of your post that you are really in search of block. You are leaving out crucial context and magnifying the seriousness of the accusations ("very serious personal attacks", "they are edit warring over several articles with each other"), and it's obvious why. Khirurg keeps replying to AlexBachmann with accusations is also clearly false. Did I respond with accusations here [18] or here [19]? If you look at the whole picture, I have in fact been quite patient with AlexBachmann. I feel WP:HOUNDed, and perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG is in order for making false statements while going block-fishing. Khirurg (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Here you have WP:PA. I have the feeling you're not the innocent one in all of this. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Durraz0, Khirurg, please take concerns to WP:AE. I'm disinclined to consider any complaints at my talk page whose impropriety is less obvious than hurling slurs at each other or flagrant 3RR violations, as I do not necessarily have the time to make a thorough investigation at any given moment and the venue further restricts the accused editors' ability to respond to accusations (Khirurg's appearance here notwithstanding). signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you Rosguill. Should I file an AE report for both editors, or should I file one for each editor? Durraz0 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
    Only file together if the case is written as a single dispute between the two editors; if you're primarily bringing in diffs of things that they've done independently, separate cases would probably be more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

New Horizon Institute

Hello, I'm afraid I don't agree with your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Institute. As I explained in my argument to !keep for the time being, I don't think that sufficient WP:BEFORE research was done by the nominator or by anyone in the discussion, and that the language issue was also a factor. I understand that this is not strictly speaking an deletion policy argument, but I also object on the grounds that all other Wikipedia articles on secondary schools in Nepal have fewer sources or are completely unsourced, and that the one that had the largest number of references and substantive content was the one that was deleted first. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

While that is a valid argument with a basis in the guideline WP:NEXIST, I think it's clear from the discussion that editors were generally not swayed by it in this discussion, and their arguments on the basis of available sources are themselves valid, and sufficiently outnumber the editors making valid cases for keep. signed, Rosguill talk 03:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm just deeply uncomfortable with the fact that it's "easy" for people to !vote to delete articles about topics without sufficient understanding or appreciation of other geographies, languages, and cultures. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet

Hello @Rosguill, a certain user has significantly altered the Durdzuks article, under different IP-adrresses: user 1, user 2 and user 3. In talk page of the article, this user has made it clear that he does not trust many sources and references provided, and is heavily misusing the citation tag diff. Is this considered Sockpuppetry? Muqale (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Muqale I have pretty limited experience with IPs and IP math, but based on the amount of similarity in the IP addressses (first 16 characters in common across all three), the concentration of edits on a single article, and the results of an IP geolocator tool [20] which places all of these IPs in New York City, my guess would be that these are in fact all the same person, unintentionally switching IPs due to the whims of their ISP and not as an attempt to sockpuppet. For purposes of reverts, etc. these should be treated as a single editor but don't comprise sockpuppetry IMO unless their user attempts to actively present themselves as separate people (i.e. making comments as if they're not all the same person, claiming exemptions from 1RR or 3RR limits, etc.) signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for the clarification. Muqale (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
That having been said, looking at the page's history in toto rather than the individual edits, it's clear that they're edit warring against you and others in a disruptive fashion, so I've gone ahead and protected the page from IP editing for 2 days as a regular admin action. signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Slovenia Relations

Hello, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia has I am quite new, I still don't understand why my article is being banned, Thank you. AnnaWang17 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

AnnaWang17, the issue, as explained in the first notice that I left on your user talk page, is that editors with fewer than 500 edits on their account are not allowed to edit the topic area of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed (accounts also must be older than 30 days, but that's not an issue in your case anymore). "Broadly construed", in this case, means that pretty much anything relating to the politics or diplomacy of Israel or Hezbollah (among other groups involved in the conflict) is off-limits. These restrictions were authorized following an WP:ARBCOM case (itself only coming after extensive community discussion and general disruption in the topic area), and were implemented to impede the frequent attempts of sockpuppetry that we see in this and other conflict-prone areas. Any edits made by non-500/30 accounts may be reverted by any other editor as an enforcement measure.
Now, while articles that are entirely about the conflict, such as Six Day War, can be protected at the page level to prevent non-500/30 editors from touching the page (WP:ECP), for articles that merely touch upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some of their sections this is not a preferred option (e.g. in theory you could maybe add information about trade relations between Slovenia and Israel, or Israeli priorities in Slovenia provided that do not touch upon the conflict; a cleaner example of an article with both ARBPIA and non-ARBPIA content would be something like Freedom of religion in Asia by country, where the Israel/Palestine section is covered by ARBPIA but the rest of the article is totally unrelated). There's also the further issue that it would be a fool's errand to try to preemptively protect every page title related to the conflict that does not yet have an article created. As both of the revisions at Israel–Slovenia relations that you created dealt directly with Slovenia's attitude towards Hezbollah, and thus with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this was a repeated violation of the 500/30 restriction that I felt would be best addressed by simply preventing you from editing that page further, without limiting other editors from contributing to the page in a ARBPIA-compliant fashion, with a time limit of one month so that the once you do meet the 500/30 requirement you will be free to edit without needing to appeal this partial-block.
If any of this seems quite complicated: it is, regrettably. Editing related to ARBCOM-designated contentious topics (CTOPs) is one of the most difficult and contentious areas on Wikipedia, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict further belongs to a subset of CTOPs that have specifically authorized a blanket 500/30 restriction for the entire topic area (the other two topics with this level of precaution are Antisemitism in Poland and Armenia-Azerbaijan). You will have a much warmer welcome to Wikipedia editing if you focus on topics outside of these areas. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Stephenson 2 DFK 1 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 03:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 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 00:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of British royal consorts

Could you please delete the above page and move Talk:British royal consorts to Talk:List of British royal consorts? Thanks. There was an oversight during the recent moves. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Taken care of. signed, Rosguill talk 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Redirect question

Hello friend. Quick question about redirects, if you're willing. A) Does the target article always have to have the redirect term in it? B) For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15955 Johannesgmunden is about an asteroid that will probably get deleted. Would it be appropriate to redirect something like that to Asteroid belt, or would that be a bad target because it doesn't contain the term 15955 Johannesgmunden? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I would say it depends a bit on the nature of the article and redirect in question. In this case, I don't think it would be helpful, as for the reader, inferring that 15955 Johannesgmunden is an asteroid is unlikely to be new and useful information; is/a relationship redirects are rarely helpful and get in the way of WP:REDYES. However, a strict synonym for a target that for whatever reason is not significant enough to mention in text, e.g. Nueva York --> New York or obvious antonyms (e.g. Anti-elitism --> Elitism) are typically good as a redirect. You can find more examples by taking a look at Template:R to article without mention signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello! I hope you can review this page as it has been up for a while but remains unreviewed. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still..._At_Their_Very_Best Maxen Embry (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, as a general rule I don't review articles on request. The backlog is relatively short right now, with average review wait times under a month. signed, Rosguill talk 13:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge dispute

I made a Merge proposal there but there is disagreement if it should be done. Should in this case an RfC be opened, or should an admin decide? What is the way to proceed in such cases? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I read WP:MERGE but I am not sure if I understood correctly how it is proceeded. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Ktrimi991, I would list it first at proposed mergers (essentially a specialized request for comment). signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I will do it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

NPP School

Greetings Rosguill! I was wondering if you had any open slots in your schedule to train me in NPP school. If not, that’s completely fine. Maliner (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Maliner I'm currently traveling and wouldn't want to commit to taking on a new student before mid-July. If you're still looking for a mentor in a few weeks I'll probably have capacity then. signed, Rosguill talk 22:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Noted with thanks. Will be happy to learn with you. Maliner (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Please ping me when you will be free. Maliner (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Angels–Mariners rivalry

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Angels–Mariners rivalry. 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. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Recoup content from Sportskeeda, please draftify

Hi, I would like to create the page for the parent company of Sportskeeda. May I get access to the draft, and expand it please? I may possibly change the name of the draft to the Parent company, but I would like to not start from scratch and gain access to the article of Sportskeeda, which will be a section in the article, to which will be will be able to redirect. Thank you! Lethweimaster (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. Given that the plan is to adapt this content to an article about the parent company, I'm going to opt for placing this into your user space rather than draftspace. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Lethweimaster, you can find it at User:Lethweimaster/Sportskeeda-Nazara Technologies signed, Rosguill talk 00:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_36&oldid=1172303201"