Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44

Four Continents Speed Skating Championships

What sources are we actually missing here ? Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Migrant, citations to sources outside the ISU, which are necessary to establish notability. The most likely example to find would be newspaper coverage of the event, although books or peer-reviewed articles about the sport could theoretically include coverage as well. signed, Rosguill talk 13:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are the medalvinner-list for all editions so far at isu.org
And here are some sources from the single events:
And here are some news-articles from Speedskating.ca/Speed Skating Canada: Search Results: "Four continents" - 36 Results Found
Would this be enough ? Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 19:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
No, these are databases and primary sources, which aren't the kind of sources that our notability guidelines specify. What we need is WP:SECONDARY text articles, published by outlets unaffiliated with ISU, ideally with several paragraphs of text describing in detail the Four Continents Championship and analyzing it. E.g., [1] provides such coverage of the 2023 World Athletics Championships – Men's 800 metres signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Noahide redirect deletion

Hi, thanks for stepping in on the Noahide redirect. I don't understand what is meant by "it is a known scam that paid editors will claim affiliation with editors in a deletion discussion and extort money to "prevent the deletion" (which is not something within their power to do)." I have not received any emails from anyone. I suppose the other user who was pushing the Noahide thing as "Anabaptist" felt hurt when his edits were rejected. It seems there is a little group of "Noahide" people, relatively new (last decade or so?), who feel that they belong within the Anabaptist umbrella. That's okay if they feel that way, but until they become large enough to make at minimum a tiny ripple in a movement that includes literally a couple of million people, I have a hard time giving them much room for articles relating to Anabaptism. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

My reading was that the other editor in the discussion was targeted by the scammers, who decided to claim to be you, hence the ping. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, if Wikipedia admins want to verify whether it was me, they can contact me privately and ask me whatever they want. I suppose for the recipient of the scams, it may add insult to injury if he feels that I tried to extort him, beyond just get the deletion. Sad world we live in, when people try to stir up trouble just for a few dollars. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1217442386

Hello, what exactly was the reason to suppress the redirect here? 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, it seemed to be unnecessary, did I miss something useful about it? signed, Rosguill talk 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I just figured because it was linked from the discussion it would have done no harm. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:9t5 User Page Contest 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 15:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patil (Koli title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Koli language.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Maphumor

User talk:Maphumor was reported to ANI “ @Maphumor has been culprit for removing various important things from the page and his past edits has also been criticized of the same. Also many new things have been removed in this page. Please revert the changes made by @maphumor and restore the page. Rkvaishnavp (talk) 7:55 am, Today (UTC+1)” I don’t know them but as you alerted them for the ipa area you may. Their talk page is discouraging. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller I don't recall what prompted me to place that notification originally. It does look like the removal of the BJP candidate from the page is unjustified, and other editors have complained on the talk page already. I'm disinclined to respond to the AN post because of the various issues with the filing (wrong board, no notification, new account/likely sock) so I've just dropped in on the article talk page and pinged Maphumor to explain their edits. signed, Rosguill talk 13:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this. Timewasting nuisances are driving me nuts right now. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Doug Weller, Maphumor continued to ignore requests to justify their edits at the Tamil Nadu election page while also avoiding further edits to that page, so I stepped in and reverted the contested edit. This nominally makes me ~~involved~~, since policy is hazy on how involvement relates to edits made on behalf of editors who are below the level of protection needed to edit a page who have made semi-formal requests, but I expect that if Maphumor attempts to edit war on that page it will clearly be the time for a block. signed, Rosguill talk 13:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I'll try to keep on top of this. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs cleanup

@Rosguill, please look at Ahir clans, Gwalavanshi and Dhadhor. Please remove unreliable raj era sourced information. 2409:4085:8D10:961F:0:0:8889:DB13 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
you unbanned my account like a while ago but thanks for being the only one that listened to me :) 
Isabpc (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Cookiemonster1618

Hello Rosguill, User:Cookiemonster1618 continues to make similar personal attacks that led to a topic ban a few months ago despite previous warning. see his latest [2] previous warnings [3] [4] and ANI discussion [5] Magherbin (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I havent made any attacks I called you up to a discussion on Harari people but you never addressed my arguments. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
How have I made personal attacks against you? I explained in the talk page for Harari people on why I reverted your edits and did not use any personal attacks in the discussion in fact I was calm and explained why I reverted your edit with reasoning. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain how I made personal attacks against you? At the talk page my language in the discussion box didn't include any personal attacks? Talk:Harari people Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
So trying to removing the disambiguation link of the Habesha peoples page on the main Harari people page is not very honest of you could be construed as a mild personal attack; the edit doesn't need to be personalized as "not very honest of you" and could instead be referred to as "misleading" or "incorrect" without assigning blame. That having been said, I don't think this rises to the level of infraction that would motivate me to impose a sanction on the basis of a report at my talk page, unless it can be demonstrated that this is a consistent pattern despite prior warnings. The prior ANI discussion seems to mostly deal with questions of sourcing, not civility, and doesn't seem to establish a precedent of prior warning. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank You @Rosguill if that was a personal attack against @Magherbin than I take responsibility for that. That was not my intention though, my intention was to have a discussion with him/her on why they kept removing the Habesha peoples disambiguation link. This problem never occurred before because the Argobba people and Siltʼe people pages also had that disambiguation link. My intention was simply to argue on why the disambiguation link to that page should not be removed. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Btw there have been no warnings on my page from that user or any users regarding my recent edits after February 2024. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
That discussion was closed because I was blocked for 2 months also in the discussion I still don't see any personal attacks that were used against you by me. I simply explained in a civil discussion on the talk page why I reverted your edit. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Aka4729_impersonating_administrator_and_removing_AfD_template_on_heavily_socked_article. Thank you. ——Serial Number 54129 13:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Service Corps of Retired Executives

Hello Rosguill, I would like to invite you to contribute to the discussion on Draft talk:Service Corps of Retired Executives Your learned input would be greatly appreciated. BuffaloBob (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

AXN Movies (Portugal)

Hi @Rosguill I saw you added notability tag to the page AXN Movies (Portugal), saying that that page "needs sources other than AXN and PR"- I would like to ask: What does PR mean? I am a Wikipedia user for only two months, what can I do for keep that page intact? Filippo.g204 (talk) Filippo.g204 (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Filippo.g204, PR refers to public relations and/or press release; in particular I think I was thinking about this source, which has a collective byline in addition to lacking any substantive analysis of the subject beyond basic description. These sorts of sources are essentially just promotional text written by the subject and are not reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Logoic plane deletion

Hi, I'm wondering why Logoic plane was deleted. Jay 💬 05:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Jay, I read the discussion as nom in favor of deletion, 1 clear !vote for deletion, and took your comment as no objection to deletion, as a circular redirect in a collapsed navigation template is typically a poor justification for a redirect. If I misinterpreted your comment and you feel strongly about the discussion I can restore and relist. signed, Rosguill talk 12:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. No strong feelings about this. I was only countering the nomination statement regarding no mention at target. Jay 💬 15:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

-)

Hey Rosguill, could you reopen and/or reclose Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#-) possibly? (I meant to respond to Jeske there.) There was really no reason for -/ and -\ to target different targets, and Emoticon counter to the other consensuses to point these generally at the list of emoticons, I have no idea why this would be different. The !keep votes seem to be more in line with "don't delete" and not people actually supporting the status quo. Let me know your thoughts on this, cheers, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In hindsight I don't really care too much, the biggest thing I was hoping for was "consensus that one article is preferable" and that didn't come about, which I feel is a pretty agreeable stance and it'd be nice to have that reflected officially, perhaps. (I know it was relisted twice with no other comments, but if reopened I'd at least like to alert Jeske to the difference in targets and see whether they'd hold their stance after the fact). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes: I read this a few times and could not understand. Perhaps it is the .. and Emoticon counter ... that is throwing me off. What is the concern with the close? Did you prefer targeting both to Emoticon? Jay 💬 08:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The outcome of "emoticon status quo" runs counter to the other similar closes that retargeted to the general list. As a disclaimer, I don't personally have a preference one way or another between the two targets, but I was surprised to see some emoticons go one way and others go another with little rationale.
I was hoping to use the basis of these results as a precedent for retargeting a major list of redirects from emoticons. At the time I wasn't completely sure whether certain types of emoticons have a stronger affinity towards aiming at Emoticon vs aiming at List of emoticons, which is why I was hoping to figure that out through these discussions (i.e., maybe east-asian style have better coverage at page A, whereas smileys are more preferable at page B, was my original thought when I saw the discrepancies in targets.) A lot ended up closing towards List of emoticons, but the split outcome was not the most satisfactory ending for the situation. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Ignore my comment. I was looking at the wrong RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#'). I agree that the RfD you mentioned can be relisted unless Rosguill has discounted Lunamann's revote from Keep to Retarget. Jay 💬 08:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Utopes, you have my permission to reopen the discussion--I would do it myself but I'm hurrying out the door and expect to be very busy the next few days. signed, Rosguill talk 13:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Youknowwhoistheman

Hi Rosguill. Could you please review this request a bit thoroughly? They appear to be a professional spammer - here they spammed an independently published book. I think they are not honest and would likely abuse the tools. 89.204.223.237 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barkley Marathons 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 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Enforcement of community ANI-based ban at ITN

Hello, I'm coming back into Wikpiedia after a long break to cool down from life in general and Wikipedia to a degree. As I was on my way out of the door I gained an indefinite ban at ITN, enforced by you per the logs. So as a reminder to me, what is required for me to appeal against this, is it simply a thread at ANI or some other request? Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, community bans should be appealed at WP:AN by opening a thread. I'd maybe recommend taking a few months of on-wiki editing before rushing to appeal though, I would expect that to greatly increase chances of succeeding. signed, Rosguill talk 03:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes of course. Thanks for your response. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 11:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. I was thinking about make a section about this topic [6]. Where do you think it will be most appropriate, WP:AN or WP:ANI? I feel like the latter doesn't pay much attention to these kind of issues, but I'm not sure. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

HistoryofIran Presuming that your intent is to investigate the other suspected sockpuppets/collaborators, I think ANI is most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

TheSagar

A redirect 2024–25 SA20 that User:Thesagar75 had created twice, and whom you had blocked in Jan, has been recreated by User:Sagar Singh 9, account created in March. Jay 💬 20:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as obvious sock, noting that they'd already been pinged for various disruptive edits as well. signed, Rosguill talk 15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Shravan Tiwari

Hi Rosguill. Shravan Tiwari has been moved back to the mainspace. I noticed in the page history that you draftified it in January citing UPE/block evasion concerns; so, I'm just letting you know as a couresy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly, this ended up being quite the rabbit hole, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. I didn't realize things were that messy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Private evidence blocks

Hi, per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, related to Special:Diff/1206604402 and Special:Diff/1223193298, please make sure you are reporting UPE and other private evidence blocks so that they can actually be reviewed. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact, administrators who are not Checkusers or Oversighters should not make private evidence blocks at all, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Confidential evidence, which states The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.
Please send cases like this to either a CU, OS, or to ArbCom. I for one am more than happy to take 'private evidence' referrals from admins in my functionary capacity. firefly ( t · c ) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Primefac, firefly, noted! I hadn't been aware of that clause. I will collect the relevant emails and send them along. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to include a reminder in the next Admin Newsletter. S0091 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It's been in there before. Any sort of reminder might make more sense when the new paid editing queue launches (something I hope Rosguill gives serious thought about applying for). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll look into it when it's time, although my first impulse regarding this (and the encouragement to pursue CU status in the section above) is that for as long as actual new page patrolling makes up a significant portion of my editing, taking on these additional roles might make me more judge-jury-and-executioner than is really appropriate (at least from the vantage point of anyone on the receiving end). signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe that the only relevant materials I have actually acted on are related to the QuadriSayedSahab case; I have not reviewed anything related to the second diff concerning Annuarif although I believe I did receive an email this morning (I have been sick recently and have thus been applying less than my usual diligence in responding to requests). Usedtobecool, please forward relevant further correspondence to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and/or firefly per their volunteering here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
It's done. Thanks firefly. I did often wonder if it's functionaries I should be contacting but that wasn't the practice that I learned when I was learning, and missed that RFC as well. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I don't believe any of my previous emails included private evidence. They numbered two or three and were sent for a more frank/comfortable communication and/or for communicating sock tells that I had shared more cryptically onwiki. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The QuadriSayedSahab case involved private evidence sent to me by a different editor. Your description of our past off-wiki communication is accurate to my recollection: it's mostly been about calling out patterns of editing between accounts that would amount to spilling the beans if repeated on-wiki but which did not include anything actually private in nature. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Moroccanoil

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Moroccanoil. 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. Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done a deletion review before, I hope I'm doing this properly :) Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Kapitan110295, as the people who have responded to the discussion have already pointed out, DRV is appropriate if there was an issue with the prior deletion discussion/closure itself. In this case, the situation is that you are asserting that there is now a notable topic by this name, unrelated to the discussion at RfD 3 years ago, so you would have been better off skipping DRV and just drafting a new article since there’s nothing for DRV to evaluate. You can still do that by withdrawing the current discussion (if you’re not sure how to do that, just leave a comment saying that you want to withdraw and someone will do the rest) and then proceeding to start working on the article. signed, Rosguill talk 13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Çankaya Mansion

Is there anyway we can protect this article per WP:GS/AA enforcement action? An IP has been removing referenced information since 3 May. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, yes, Armenian Genocide-related material is plainly within scope of those restrictions.  Done and logged at WP:AELOG. signed, Rosguill talk 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Stay safe, Rosguill. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Got Milked

Hi. Following that user's block from the specified 2 articles, could I ask you to glean through his other ones in the related subject? He has a history of warnings. From what I've seen, his style is inflammatory, and his contributions are large chunks of barely-relevant, poorly sourced and badly written text. AddMore-III (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a consistent pattern of COATRACK editing, yes, although now that the active disruption has been dealt with, nothing that rises to the level that would make it appropriate for me to deliver a sanction as a bolt out of the blue. If you think that the quality of their edits is of such a consistently poor quality that it has become disruptive in general, you can bring a case to WP:AE, but I doubt such a request will be successful unless/until there are examples of 6+ articles where this has happened or new examples of disruptive editing since the p-block. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thanks for your contributions! :) xRozuRozu (t • c) 04:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sent you a mail again

Really hoping you have the time right now. Only the private evidence is private. So, we can talk about the rest of it on wiki. Have you considered becoming a CU? If anyone needs it, that's you. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Get well soon, Rosguill. Sorry to have put you in the position. I default to you cos of the NPP connection. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
All good Usedtobecool, it was an honest mistake on both our parts and I don't think anyone's planning on throwing the book at us yet (just y'know, opening the book and pointing to a page). signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool +1 I was thinking the same for a while now that Rosguill would become a good CU. Since SPI has a backlog now and needs a few helping hands, I think this will be the right time to apply if they feel it is interesting. Regards! Maliner (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Peranakans

You don't know about the whole Perakans! As a Malaysian, I still know everything about Peranakan ,you don't know how many ethnicities Peranakan are out there, do you know the difference between Peranakan Chinese Baba Nyonya , Baba Yaya , Kiau Seng ? 2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian, you need to provide reliable sources to back your claims. Also, on English Wikipedia, you need to write in comprehensible English, which your article-space contributions have thus-far fallen short of. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, I'd draw your attention to the hatnote already at Peranakan Chinese: This article is about Peranakans with Chinese ancestry. For Peranakans with Indian ancestry, see Chitty. For Peranakans with Eurasian ancestry, see Kristang. For Peranakan Muslims of Indian, Malay and Arab descent, see Jawi Peranakan. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Request to receive response for my claims in the discussion although I am not "qualified"

hey, did you had a chance to read the discussion before looking it?

I would appreciate if I could get an answer to my questions regarding the request for enforcement in that topic, specifically regarding the policy I have quoted regarding re-instating of content in dispute.

I hope you cold see I am coming with good fait and instead of fighting we could have a fruitful conversation...

"Many users believe that unregistered users' sole contributions to Wikipedia are to cause disruption to articles and that they have fewer rights as editors compared with registered users. Studies in 2004 and 2007 found that although most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome_unregistered_editing

Hope that you will address my concern regarding the policy instead of choosing the easy route of calling me disruptive and dismiss my request for rules to be enforced equally :) 109.64.78.25 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

IPs are not allowed to edit these topics per WP:ARBCOM's rulings, which are endorsed by the community. This is a necessary measure to address sockpuppetry and persistent bad faith editing in the topic area. End of discussion. Persistent attempts to challenge this as an IP is itself a violation of the ruling, and will result in a loss of editing privileges if continued. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

TPA removal and rev/del request

Hi Rosguill, see the unblock request at User talk:Make Way For The King. I have already sent an OS request for their edit summaries at Kolkata Knight Riders. Pinging @K6ka who blocked them for their awareness. S0091 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like K6ka already (correctly) removed TPA. I've gone ahead and performed the revdel. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Rosguill. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

redirect of the page: String Quartet No. 4 (Ichmouratov)

Dear Rosguill, I just noticed that you redirected the page about String Quartet No. 4, Op. 35. I realize that I probably didn't address the notability concerns properly and later forgot about it. Now, the page is deleted, and I believe this work by this Canadian composer is important and notable for Wikipedia readers, as it has been performed on multiple occasions in several countries, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. I would like to ask if you could restore the deleted page and give me a chance to improve it and prove its notability with reliable sources. Thank you, Patrick0506 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Patrick0506 Nothing has been deleted, you should be able to access everything in the page's history, here's a link for convenience to the last revision before redirection [7]. I would have merged information to the article about Ichmouratov himself, except that said article was comprehensive enough that it wasn't clear if it would be appropriate. My concerns regarding the No. 4 article is that the cited sources appeared to praise the album that the No.4 appears on, but dedicate virtually no attention to the No.4 piece itself. signed, Rosguill talk 14:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. I will work on making this page more informative about the composition itself. Patrick0506 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I have one more question. I want to ensure I'm following Wikipedia's rules correctly. After adding more information, if I understood correctly, I cannot remove the "Notability" tag myself since, as the creator of the page, I have a conflict of interest. Should I approach you for this task? Sorry for asking so many questions, this is my first time dealing with this issue, and I want to do everything according to the rules. Thank you in advance for your advice.Patrick0506 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Eh, it's a gray area to be honest as long as you don't have an actual WP:COI with the subject itself (i.e. while it's natural for you to be somewhat biased towards the state of the article given that you started it, unless you have an actual external relationship with Ichmouratov or this work it's not a full-blown COI). In this case, since we've already discussed it here and I'm confident you're approaching this in the right spirit, I wouldn't object to you removing it yourself (and if I still think there are serious notability issues even then, I would just progress to opening an WP:AfD so that the community can weigh in and come to a consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you for the quick response. I will do my best to get it right. All the best. Patrick0506 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, I just wanted to keep you updated in case you would like to check. I have worked on the page over the last few days, adding more information about this composition, including music samples, external audio, and image files. Thank you again for your advice and contributions. it's much appreciated. I feel that I learn something, and I am grateful.
Best regards, Patrick0506 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions: Heart Throb

I'm confused. Where is the evidence there was "extensive copyvio of the original English episode summaries" in Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions: Heart Throb? Now that the history has been deleted, I can't check them for myself to verify your claims. You've also inadvertently left List of Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions episodes with half of its content now gone without any episode list whatsoever for the 2014 series, which is not exactly helpful.--十八 20:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The text came up in a copyvios.toolforge.org report that matched the text to www.themoviedb. org/tv/45501/episodes?credit_id=55525564c3a3683d3b001960&person_id=4c85cb465e73d66b5b00006e&language=es-es (n.b. that website is on Wikipedia's blacklist, hence the non-functional link). My guess is that the summaries were likely the original first-party summaries provided by the publisher of the anime, but that is still under copyright and not material we can include on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it possible for me to see which summaries were potential copyvios? Was it all of them, or just some of them? Seems kind of pointless to discard all of them if only some of them were in violation.--十八 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
About 80% of them were matches, and in my experience when that's the case it's usually all of them and the non-matched ones just match to a different page on the site and thus don't get identified in the report. What I can do for you though, is restore the page and bring back the template and all of the other metadata other than the summaries. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate that, thank you.--十八 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Progressive Zionism

Currently Progressive Zionism forwards to Reform Zionism, where it is claimed that "Reform Zionism (is) also known as Progressive Zionism" but there is no source supporting this claim. This is a misleading claim in the US and in much of the rest of the world. I suggest that this sentence be changed to "Reform Zionism (is) sometimes known outside the US as Progressive Zionism." In the United States, and in the global Zionist movement, Progressive Zionism often refers to a non-religious successor to non-religious Labor Zionism. It is misleading to say that Reform Zionism is also known as Progressive Zionism.

The only part of the Reform Zionism opening paragraph that alludes to this claim is the last sentence, which reads "In Israel, Reform Zionism is associated with the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism." But Progressive Judaism is not ordinarily another term for Progressive Zionism, Progressive Judaism is another term for Reform Judaism. If you go to the website for the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism and do a search for "Zionism" - https://reform.org.il/en/?s=zionism - you will get no responses. It does not use the term "Progressive Zionism" to describe itself. I looked at all of the available sources cited in this article and almost none of them refer to the term "Progressive Zionism."

It seems that only outside of the US, Progressive Zionism sometimes used to mean Reform Zionism. Arza (Association of Reform Zionists of America) Canada almost exclusively uses the term Reform Zionism, and occasionally uses "Progressive Zionism" on their website. As one moves further from the US, the term Progressive Zionism is more commonly used to mean Reform Zionism. Arza Australia https://arza.org.au/about-us/ uses "Progressive Zionism" and Reform Zionism and the World Union for Progressive Judaism uses the term "Progressive Zionism" to mean what in the US is Reform Zionism.

But in the US and in some English media in Israel, Progressive Zionism has a different meaning. It means Progressive in the political sense, not the religious sense. Progressive Zionism in the US has nothing to do with Reform religious Judaism. For example, the 1st hit in a Google search is https://ameinu.net/about-ameinu/progressive-zionism/ . Ameinu is a non-religious organization with a historical connection to Labor Zionism. The 2nd hit is a Hadassah interview with Nomi Colton-Max, the VP of Ameinu. After the Wikipedia article about Reform Judaism, the 4th hit is a Jewish Currents article called "Progressive Zionists Choose a Side." This is not an article about Reform Jews, the Progressive Zionists in the article are "the Peace Bloc—Americans for Peace Now (APN), T’ruah, J Street, the New York Jewish Agenda, the National Council for Jewish Women, Ameinu, Reconstructing Judaism, and Habonim Dror, many of which operate as a loose coalition called the Progressive Israel Network (PIN)" The 5th hit is https://www.habonimdror.org/progressive-labor-zionism/ , which is part of the Progressive Israel Network and affiliated with Ameinu. Even in American Reform Synagogues, Progressive Zionism is not equated with Reform Zionism. The guest speaker at a Stephen Wise (one of the largest Reform temples in Los Angeles" program about Progressive Zionism is Ken Bob, the president of Ameinu. https://swfs.org/calendar/progressive-zionism-in-light-of-october-7-%F0%9F%99%8B/ This demonstrates that in the US, even Reform Zionists don't think that Reform Zionism is also known as Progressive Zionism.

Internationally, when the official American Zionist Movement presents itself to Israel and the rest of the Zionist world, Progressive Zionism is distinct from Reform Zionism. See https://azm.org/elections/ . The "Reform Zionist" slate is Vote Reform: ARZA Representing the Reform Movement and Reconstructing Judaism. In its description, it calls itself "the largest constituent of ARZENU, the umbrella organization of Reform and Progressive Religious Zionists." Note - "Progressive Religious Zionists," NOT "Progressive Zionists." The Progressive Zionist slate is Hatikvah: Progressive Israel Slate. Its description is "proudly supported by Aleph, Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror, Hashomer Hatzair, J Street, Jewish Labor Committee, New Israel Fund, National Council of Jewish Women, Partners for Progressive Israel and T'ruah ..." - these are the same Progressive Israel Network organizations that are what Americans generally mean when they say Progressive Zionism. The only religious group in the bunch is T'ruah, which is non-denominational - it is not affiliated with Reform Judaism.

In English-speaking Israel as well, Progressive Zionism generally means left-wing political Zionism, not Reform Judaism Zionism. If you look at the articles in The Times of Israel tagged "Progressive Zionism - https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/progressive-zionism/ - most of the articles are about what in the US is considered Progressive Zionism, for example this article about the merger between Ameinu and Americans for Peace Now.

Please make that correction in the Reform Zionism article, and restore the article I started writing about Progressive Zionism as it is commonly known in the US, in the modern-day global Zionist movement, and in the English-language Israeli press. Of course the "Progressive Zionism" could include the fact that outside the US, some English-speaking countries use the term "Progressive Zionism" to mean what in the US is known as Reform Zionism. Tysonsahib (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tysonsahib, please make a formal edit request at Talk:Reform Zionism for consideration. I'd also recommend trying to make briefer arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the long argument. I was trying to document the validity of my claims. I was bummed the article I started writing was deleted. I made an edit request as you suggested. Thank you. Tysonsahib (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2024 (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.

Bsoyka (t • c • g) 18:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottomanist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Rev Del Request

Hi there,

Is this "allowed" to be rev-del'd? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oi!&diff=next&oldid=1226101870 Thanks! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, it's obvious vandalism but I think revdel is unnecessary here. It's juvenile, but it's not really offensive per-se and the article in question isn't a BLP and I don't see this being a serious defamation concern. signed, Rosguill talk 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

HELP

Hi Rosguill, I saw you reverted someone here adding a site on perenial sources page with a reason "rv addition, 3 discussions all of them small, one of them not at RSN, none of them formally closed, and discussion looks like more of a "no consensus" balance than "generally reliable" to me."

While I am not related to the case, I just would like to know the steps I should take so that the site The Nation (weblink: https://www.mwnation.com/) could be added there or on the list of reliable sources.

I tried posting this here but don't know if the outcome will be the same.
Another thing is that I frequently create articles using this source, so I really need the community's input on it. Thanks. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tumbuka Arch, WP:RSP is not a list of reliable sources per se, it is a list of sources that have been repeatedly, exhaustively discussed. Most sources used on Wikipedia are not listed there. If you are uncertain about a source’s reliability and want the community’s input, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN. Alternatively, if there’s been disagreement in whether or not it’s reliable enough to be used in the contexts you have been relying on it, you can open an WP:RFC at RSN to hopefully get a clearer consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 14:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for accumulating at least 200 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

Rack and pinion Award

This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for accumulating at least 15 points during each week of the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious IP address accounts

Hello i was just wondering what could be done about suspicious accounts such as this one @77.87.98.59 which does nothing but revert articles in order to remove mentions of Chechens? Can it be blocked or could the articles they spam be locked so only people with a certain amount of edits can access them? because this account does nothing but remove mention of Chechens like here and here, my rollbacks to original versions (which me, Wikieditor and others agreed upon) are still being removed and i don't want to edit war. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they took a break from editing shortly before you left this message. While their pattern of edits is concerning, I'd like to see more concrete evidence that their edits are clearly tendentious--there's one or two where they give a completely misleading edit summary, but the majority indicate justifiable reasons for changes (e.g. removing unsourced material or material not verifiable with the cited source). If you can demonstrate to me that these justifications were false a block would be in order, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort at this moment given the chance that the IP goes dormant. If disruption continues at these pages it's a basis for protection. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The two examples i provided are not enough evidence? the IP is literally just removing any mention of Chechens in the intro from articles such as Orstkhoy (a major Chechen tribe) and Durdzuks (an ancient exonym for Chechens). I am sure you remember how me and Wikieditor/Muqale debated about various sections in these articles but nowhere did any of us disagree that both Orstkhoy and Durzuk are related to Chechens, the talk pages are testament to that if we disagreed on something it was rather who the tribe/exonym was related to most. The removal of unsourced material is fine but again it seems to have been done due to it having mentions of Chechens but the main issue with his edits (the most recent ones) is the removal of the sentence about the Chechen ethnicity of Argun district and the villages transferred to it. This part: "due to them belonging to the same nation as the locals (Chechen) and geographically closer to the central governance of the Okrug." He removes it despite it existing in the source on page 3 in the bottom, again it was already accepted by other editors who usually disagree with me. Only the IP addresses seem to be disagreeing, in my opinion it is enough to ban. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I see your perspective, and I hadn't realized on the first glance how much sourced text concerning Chechen ancestry was included in the rest of the Orstkhoy article and had just been paying attention to the sections they changed, which were unreferenced. I also hadn't realized that the "return to stable version" (which it in no way was) was their second edit, out of the blue, which to me signals that they both a) clearly have edited Wikipedia before and b) fully understand how disruptive and misleading their editing is. I'm going to go ahead and block for a month or so, given that the IP has about a week of stable history. signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Socking IP (belonging to Bensebgli)

Hi, you mentioned in this edit that this IP has behavioural similarities to a sockfarm , they still seem to be socking using the same range , and have personally attacked me multiple times. [8] [9] [10][11] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin Given how much the IP jumps around, I'm not seeing a range that we could block. I would offer to remove or strike messages with personal attacks, but it seems like that's essentially been taken care of already. You can request page protection if they make disruptive edits. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to let you know, their range (2404:3100:1800::/40) has been blocked by Spicy as a checkuser block. [12] Ratnahastin (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Benicaverra

In February, you gave Benicaverra a UPE warning, which they ignored. On 6 June, they reappeared, removed your warning from their talk page, and made several drive-by "votes" at AfD, all deletes except two keeps at WP:Articles for deletion/Matt Hunt (journalist) and WP:Articles for deletion/MacGregor (filmmaker), both SPA-created articles. This smells like a UPE network, but I'm not sure how best to proceed except raising it at WP:COIN, which probably won't achieve much. I already emailed the CU mailing list with the concerns, given that it wasn't obvious enough to build SPI case on, but no action seems to have been taken. Do you have any suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The ignored warning followed by AfD disruption seems like enough for me to justify a block. You may want to also file an WP:SPI between this account and the two accounts that created those AfDs, as they're both SPAs with less than 50 edits, and a CU check may turn up more accounts as well. signed, Rosguill talk 03:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benicaverra. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_42&oldid=1242413374"