User talk:Rosguill/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Could you train me?

Hello, could you train me for the NPP school? Siccome il mio inglese non è molto buono ci sono termini che non potrei comprendere. Dr Salvus 21:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, I'm willing to in principle, but if you're concerned about your English skills this may not be the best role for you. Part of new page reviewing means assessing whether articles need copy editing and tagging accordingly or fixing it yourself. Pensi di poter fare questo labore? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A questo punto meglio di no. Il mio inglese non è buono e commetto frequentemente errori grammaticali Dr Salvus 06:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, allora, forse te piaccera lavorare in Articles for Creation? It's a similar line of work, but spotting grammatical issues is not part of it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Va bene Dr Salvus 17:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, AFC also has a lower barrier to entry. You can apply after reading the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Based on your AfD record I don't think you'll have any trouble, but feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ho appena fatto richiesta Dr Salvus 18:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Non so se la mia richiesta verrà accettata ma se dovesse succedere vorrei avere una preparazione adeguata. Purtroppo in questo momento devo pensare ad un esame scolastico importantissimo e quindi vorrei iniziare dopo di esso. Dr Salvus 18:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, mi sembra che ti hanno dato i permissi in via provissoria (vede Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#User:Dr_Salvus) fino all'autunno. Buona fortuna con gli esami. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Non me n'ero accorto. Essere in prova vuol dire avere gli stessi privilegi di chi ha i privilegi in maniera permanente? Dr Salvus 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, correto, le uniche differenze sono che la questione dello privilegio sarà revisato dopo alcuni mesi, e che il privilegio posse essere rimosso senza discussione _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Digging up diffs

How do people dig up super old diffs? I’ve seen individuals dig up diffs from 2007 in order to illustrate a point and they do so relatively fast too but me on the other hand find it difficult to dig up diffs from days ago, so how exactly do editors do that? Is there a script for that? Celestina007 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I'm not aware of any such script (and imagine it would be somewhat controversial if it existed). My guess is that in these cases, either the editor knows exactly what discussion they're looking for, or they've kept a file with dirt on the editor that they're trying to call out which they've built over time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That does makes sense, thanks for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adoption request

Hi there,

I'm currently doing research on Charles II of Navarre, and in the course of my research, I frequently come to Wikipedia and find that the particular article I'm interested in is in French and not English. The system has prompted me to translate these pages which I am happy to do, but I am ignorant of the guidelines and am not sure where to start. I've saved a few into draft form (not enough experience to publish anything) and I'm also not sure how to get the experience necessary.

Honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm doing this request correctly...

If you have the time & inclination to take me on, I'd be very grateful,

Adrienne (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Aboudreau71, I'd be happy to help. Have you read through Help:Translation yet? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill I have read that page. Perhaps you could look at my work and point out specific issues you see and direct me? You will probably quickly see what I don't know, (such as how the templates work within a translated page). Maybe send me to a model translated page that will demonstrate the programming pieces I'm unfamiliar with? I'm not sure how you usually work with a adoptee but I'm flexible and grateful. Adrienne (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Aboudreau71, so a few things do jump out at me. As for the templates, unfortunately you need to find the English counterparts to the originals, which may not always be straightforward. If you use Wikipedia's built in translation tool it will convert templates that have been specifically linked, but it's not 1-to-1 across language projects. Additionally, I see that you appear to have translated a disambiguation page, User:Aboudreau71/Chartreux (homonymie); because disambiguation needs are very language-specific, we do not generally translate such pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill Yeah, I suspected that disambiguation page was a mistake. Is there any way to delete it? Regarding the templates, the built in translation tool isn't available for me. Is there a templates for dummies page? Adrienne (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Aboudreau71, Help:Template is our centralized page for information about templates and how to use them, although if you just want a page where you can find an inventory of templates, that's Wikipedia:Template index. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User right

Hi sir, I've created more than 25 article of Indian University vice-chancellors, which all comes under stub class. I'm I eligible for autopatrol user right ? Because I'm planning to create more articles. Regards, Powerful Karma (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Powerful Karma, I don't think you've been editing for long enough to be given autopatrol permissions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How long time needed to get the right? Powerful Karma (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Powerful Karma, there's no strict guideline, but I would personally want to see a long track record (several months to years) of high quality work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay Sir, thank you for your response. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for peer review help

Hi Rosguill. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. I am trying my best to get the article to B class hopefully. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :) Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa

Thank you so much :) Sparklingkull (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sparklingkull, I'm not familiar with the subject matter so I can't comment much on things like source quality and subject-specific style, but from a basic Wikipedia do's and don'ts perspective, everything looks good. Citations are used regularly without spamming, sentences are clearly written, and the illustrations are helpful. Good job! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you for your reply! That is okay, I am just wondering how I can get the article reassessed for its current rank (stub, start, B class etc)? I have put my article up in WikiPlants project in the list of article for peer-reviewed help, but unsure how I can get it reassessed and hopefully improve the rank of the article. Would you be able to help me with this?

Thank you! Sparklingkull (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Strange Tales/Strange Stories

Hi, why defer to GScholar only? A search in "all" has "Tales" edging out "Stories" clearly and looking deeper it seems that Stories is archaic (primarily based off Giles' 1880 translation), with the most recent popular translations all rendering the title as "Tales". Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce, I just conducted a Google internet search, Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio gets 35k results, Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio gets 40k. If anything my searches suggest that "Liaozhai Zhiyi" may actually be the current common name, as it got 50k results and appears to be the preferred name used by the citations in the actual article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Use quote marks cos a lot of supposed hits for "Stories" (if you don't use quote marks) are for pages that use "Tales"! I looked at it myself Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce, I was using quote marks. Search engine results vary by location and user, so it could be that we're just seeing different results. At any rate, Strange Tales is not unambiguously more commonly used, so a Move Request should be used to determine whether the title should be changed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that might explain it. Anyway I'm not sure what the consensus is but my gut tells me it's preferable for the title to be in English ala Journey to the West, The Plum in the Golden Vase, Water Margin, etc. I'll do a Move Request then. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Hello Rosguill. Another Admin suggested you are available for Wikipedia:Mentorship. I have been struggling for over a year with the aftermath of a dispute that arose regarding UFOs. I was Topic Banned (and subsequently got into even more trouble trying to understand how to get out of the mess). After 1 year I tried appealing that decision unsuccessfully. Would you be available to help me out figuring how the process works and what I should do to improve my editing and clear my name? I've been struggling to find some help and would like to minimise further waste of energy by the community and by myself. I would really appreciate some experienced guidance. In cambio posso aiutarti ad allenare il tuo italiano se vuoi :-) Grazie! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, I'm willing to help some, but before I can help I'm going to need background information about the circumstances behind the ban. I found User_talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive_1#Requested_specific_grounds_for_your_topic_ban_from_UFOs_and_ufology in your talk page archive, which seems like a discussion that I will need to review. Please send me any additional links related to your ban or attempts to appeal it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! The discussions have been very lengthy and I wouldn't want you to waste too much time on it. In addition to that discussion with the imposing admin you identified I think the best thing would be for you to review (and by that I mean quickly skim... - I really feel bad having someone go through all that again) the latest appeal discussions [1] and [2]. I guess they are a good recap of the current state of affairs/consensus and include various diffs/links if you want to dig deeper. I had no idea of how the appeal would work as I couldn't find a lot of information about it. So I don't think I went about it in the best possible way and made things harder on myself than they could have been. I asked F&W some of the main questions I still have about all of this [3]. The crucial item of contention seems to revolve around the actual reason of my topic ban (here, with the change made by the imposing admin after our discussions). Which, given some of the comments by other users, I am not sure I understand. Once again: thank you so much for taking the time to help me out with this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, so, reviewing the various relevant discussions, my sense is that your ban was imposed because other editors found you too difficult to work with, pointing out a tendency on your part to repeatedly try to dictate the terms of conversations to others, coupled with personal attacks and a general failure to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors.

When you appealed your ban, you made a pseudo-legal argument arguing that the terms of the ban were improper and invalid due to a conflation of issues related to the promotion of fringe perspectives and more general disruptive editing concerns. This kind of appeal is very rarely successful; it comes off as wiki-lawyering (even if well-intentioned) as it disregards the spirit of the ban while focusing solely on the letter. This sort of appeal is only going to be successful if there is flagrantly inappropriate behavior involved in the passing of the sanction (e.g., involved editors removing dissenting comments during discussion, obvious canvassing without a clear consensus among non-canvassed editors, an involved admin making a close)

If you want to make a successful appeal, you are going to need to acknowledge the community's criticisms, and give a clear explanation of how you will avoid repeating these behaviors. Given that the disruption in this case was largely tied to a tendency to be overbearing in talk page discussions, I think that you could likely go a long way to addressing people's concerns by making a commitment to limit your participation in talk page disputes. When a disagreement comes up, state your case, then step back and let other editors continue the discussion, and have faith in Wikipedia's process that sound arguments that you raise will be taken up by other editors. Avoid engaging with back-and-forth arguments (with common sense exceptions, such as responding when someone has specifically asked for your opinion or for a clarification from you). If you propose to adopt these behaviors, I think that you stand a reasonable chance of having the ban repealed (or at least amended to a custom sanction, such as a revert restriction or a limit on number of comments made in a discussion, rather than a full topic ban) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this. I really appreciate. I know I have a tendency to bludgeon and it isn't easy when the subject at hand is myself...despite my attempts to just detach myself from such discussions and ignore them. Unfortunately I have lost a lot of faith in the process having seen how easily it can be manipulated by a handful of users. But I am willing to try again (although I think those processes should be overhauled). I agree with every comment you made about my editing and think I have been doing better since then. I had never been in a similar "contentious" situation and didn't know how to handle it. I tried asking help but couldn't really get any at the time. I was a newbie among much more experienced users (I've never done an RfC in my life! I probably should have at the time). Looking at the oppose votes several accuse me of "POV pushing": I have constantly rejected such accusations. I think I have always correctly cited reputable sources (of course sometimes I make mistakes). I received even greater accusations such as I'm not sure if there's a COI involved but there also was clear promotion of To The Stars company. I find some of those accusations very offensive. Maybe I am just taking it too personal? How do you think I should handle those concerns by the community? Do I have to "abjure, curse, and detest" my previous work if I want to have a chance for appeal? Looking at the diffs provided I don't find them particularly problematic. Several sources are always there and they are WP:RS and accurately reflected in my opinion. Should I have just ignored those comments? Or am I not getting the point and my editing is so below the standard? Grazie davvero per i consigli preziosi! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, so, without having investigated the POV-pushing allegations in detail, I don't think it's strictly necessary to recant everything; at the same time, you are much more likely to have a successful appeal if you don't waste time arguing about past arguments. Focus on how you will engage with disagreements productively moving forward. I think if you follow the suggestions I gave regarding how to engage with discussions, and state that you're open to engaging with other editors' perspectives about which sources are or are not reasonable, the community will hopefully be willing to give you a second chance (although obviously, if you are aware of anything questionable in the edits that were called out, admitting it and conceding the point will also help your case).

As for having faith in the process, you should be aware that the hands-off style of engaging with disputes that I've recommended will, in the short run, lead to you conceding some points that you perhaps could have won by being more persistent. But in the long run, other editors that you work with will appreciate your good-faith behavior and will be more amenable to your suggestions moving forward (and I should think this level of engagement will be significantly more productive than being fully banned from the topic). It is thanks to our community's various dispute resolution processes that Wikipedia is able to be as good of an informational resource as it already is; while it's obviously not perfect, it's what we have right now and it's gotten us this far. Procedural reforms can be proposed when you're not embroiled in a content dispute. Scusi per non avere scritto in italiano, io voleva essere molto claro e non fedo che la mia conoscenza dell'italiano è abbastanza. Spero che ho potuto aiutare. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Very clear and helpful as always. Grazie mille! May I disturb you again in the future if I have some questions? When the time comes could I maybe ask you to review my appeal request to ensure I don't make some of the same mistakes again? E nessun problema per l'italiano. Se vuoi allenarti sono a disposizione! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, certo, allo minimo potrei scremare la richiesta. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Rosguill

Thank you for creating Bohbot Communications.

User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi. Am doing a round-robin swap

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bohbot Communications, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Kuruluş: Osman characters

Asking since you're the protecting admin: Would it be plausible to reduce the protection level to WP:PENDINGCHANGES since the level of disruption seems to have dropped significantly and a lot of contributions from IPs and non-auto confirmed users may be constructive? The level of editing is pretty low atm, and I think PC would take care of any disruption/vandalism, although I hope it is not tedious to implement if the page is frequently edited once more. IronManCap (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IronManCap,  Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts at redirect pseduoperm

I noticed you added Lugnuts to the whitelist for redirects. Just confirming you did so with full knowledge of the discussions which lead to their normal autopatrol being revoked? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, my understanding was that the revocation was due to issues with stub quality, but I didn't pay close attention. In my experience, I've never noticed a problem with their redirects, and their contribution log is too long for me to pull up on xtools. Let me know if there are any redirect-relevant concerns I've overlooked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed this. After they had their autopatrol revoked, I was slogging through their stubs and redirects. FWIW, Not a single redirect did I have an issue with.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Need your help with sources

I am not a new editor but need help with sources used for the Our Lady of Medjugorje page and its related pages. I know some of the guidelines regarding sources and have been studying them. There are two of us editing this page and related pages and we are in disagreement often. I need a source, wikipedia expert who is neutral to assess them. We had an editor who helped clean out the page and helped us create 3 lists of the references we gathered. [[4]] Thank you for your considertion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, I'm sorry but this looks like more work than I can commit to at this time. You may be able to find further help at either WP:DRN or WP:RSN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Adopt Me!!

Hello There Rosguill I am very curious to know that weather you would mind adopting me? I am really very much Interested in learning it more under someone like you !! Thank You! Suryabeej (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Suryabeej, what sort of help are you looking for, and what sort of editing work are you interested in doing? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, Sir I am from India and i feel I have a bit of understanding about India related references and apart from that I have interest from the entertainment, Political and Book related topics, I would want to work in the betterment of these topics, and most of all I want to work against vandalism and puffery as I have noticed a load of Puffing of PR is going around, so I want to fight the Black Hat SEO as well.Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 16:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Suryabeej, if you're interested in anti-vandalism work, you should consider signing up for our counter-vandalism school. As for the other contributions to India topics, I would suggest that you dive in and work on improving existing articles. If you're unsure how to do so, you can take a look at WP:Task Center and look for the intersection of topics you are interested in and articles that need work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you Sir, I am going to sign in for the counter-vandalism school. Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 05:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

First, thanks as always for the Herculean effort you do over at NPP. Second, thanks also for keeping WP:NPPRS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, pretty sure you've been putting in more work than me recently (my numbers are high, but mostly just because I do a lot of redirects), so thank you to you too. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

NPP School

Hello, I am interested in joining the NPP school! Thank you! Heart ^(talk) 16:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, sure thing, did you want to do the full course or were there specific topics that you want to focus on? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, I would like to do the full course, please! Heart ^(talk) 04:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, I've started a page for you at User:Rosguill/HeartGlow30797 NPPSCHOOL, please feel free to begin whenever you want. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Article in Google without Review

I have created this article WazirX a few days back. Today, when I check this in Google, I can see that it is indexed but not reviewed. Being a NPP reviewer, it intrigued me. Is this usual? Is it a bug or something which needs to be taken care of? - The9Man ^(Talk) 03:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The9Man, hm, I'm not sure I was able to reproduce the Google results; I don't see the Wikipedia page in a Google search, and in a DuckDuckGo search I see a preview that is clearly taken from the Wikipedia page, but no actual result linking to Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, Please see this https://g.co/kgs/tBa6TF. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The9Man, hm, that page shows me a preview from Wikipedia, but doesn't show Wikipedia in the actual results. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, not in the actual results but in the knowledge panel. I got it, what you meant there. Thanks. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The9Man, yeah, the situation isn't ideal, but my understanding is that this is generally implemented on the search engine end and there's very little we can do about it. I don't see anything in the page's history or logs that would suggest an edge case on our end causing the behavior. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Question from Elijahandskip

Hey Rosguill. So I recently created 2021 Hialeah shooting all in compliance with my tban. I also participated in a brief talk page discussion (Intro to a now move request discussion), where I gave my opinion on the article title. An official page move discussion (Talk:2021 Hialeah shooting#Requested move 30 May 2021) began, but between my previous comment and the official discussion starting, information about a US governor was added to the article, which means I cannot edit the article/talk anymore due to my Post 1992 US politics T-ban. More for formality and such, may I have a 1 edit exemption from my t-ban to do a copy/past edit of my !vote, which is in a whole different discussion (Talk:2021 Hialeah shooting#Title), so it gets counted for the requested move discussion? I am fine if the answer is no, but I though I would ask. Thank you! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, so, your topic ban applies at a content-level, not a page level. What that means is that in theory, you can continue to edit the page (and discuss on the talk page) so long as the material that you are editing or discussing is not AP2 material (i.e. in this case you could continue to participate in everything except politicians' comments and government responses to the issue). That having been said, I think that the advice Fram related in their first reply here is good advice. Editing an article about a recent US mass shooting is going to be a tightrope walk as far as avoiding violating your tban, and you will likely save yourself a headache by focusing on other parts of the encyclopedia to work on.. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, forgive me for seeming dumb here, but since my thing is content not page based, why was my edit [5] on Ty Bollinger enough for a ban? My edit had 0 politics since it was about a COVID misinformation YT channel and based on what you just said, I would have been allowed to edit about a YouTube channel as long as I didn't talk about politics/government. From the previous discussion on your talk page (User talk:Rosguill#Apologizing for a T ban violation), I understood it as WP:BROADLY, and even other editors eluded that I couldn't edit articles that even involved politics anywhere in the article (Fram's comment about it months ago [6]). Now you are saying I can edit those articles as long as I don't edit about politics/government? Could you possibly explain what exactly I am allowed and not allowed to edit since I am getting mixed signals? Thanks in advance. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, COVID disinformation counts as a political topic in my view. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Debate between me (Eliahandskip) and Fram. Not related to the question asked.

US school shootings are almost certain to get political reactions and (like here) bickering between opposing politicians. While creating such an article is technically not a TBan violation, it would be much simpler if you just let someone else do the honours and stayed away from such recent US articles, to avoid these recurring problems. Fram (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Fram, I think you should actually know what the discussion is before giving your opinion. This wasn't a school shooting. Please just don't comment unless I do something wrong. In this case, I am asking a simple question to an admin, not you, and you just couldn't resist jumping in even though you didn't know what the article was about... Elijahandskip (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Oh right, US mass shooting, that changes my message completely... Any such mass shootings are almost certain to get political reactions etcetera. Can you please focus on the essentials instead of nitpicking a side issue? You get into trouble because you create (or edit) articles on US current events, which then turn uot to become political in some way. This isn't hard to predict, but gives issues with your topic ban (either with you violating it, or with you having to drop out of discussions to aboid violating it). The simple solution is not to create or edit such articles but to stick to non-US or non-current topics, where the changes of your topic ban interfering are much smaller. Fram (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC) In closing this rant between me and you to focus back to what I asked the admin, I will say this. First, I wasn't "nitpicking a side issue", but you commenting on a question that I asked an admin feel like you just want to cause problems again. Second, no, I won't stop creating current event articles, but I took a week break and read about 20 policies, so I actually understand Wikipedia fully now. And third, please don't comment on random things to to bring up the past again. In this specific instance, you commenting on a question I asked to an admin, is not advice at all, despite what you think. It was just a way to discredit me. While that isn't a personal attack, and you are fully able to "beat the horse carcass", I recommend you read Wikipedia:Civility, specifically the part about Try not to get too intense. (Italic in original). You have a passion to contribution watch me, and no matter what I beg for you too stop, you are fully able to do that. But, maybe for a little bit of time, you should watch me (to make sure I don't make a mistake), but not be too "superior" to me by commenting on just about anything I ask about. A simple question to an admin has now turned into a long, debate over things that shouldn't have even been talked about in the nature of the original topic/question. I will now back away from this discussion, and will hopefully, let Rosguill consider my original question. Have a wonderful day Fram! Elijahandskip (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Page « Peer Community in » tags (pov, third-party)

Hi there,

the references on the page apparently have been updated in late Jan. and seem to be less self-referential. I have trimmed some parts of the text, and removed the non-neutral sentence as suggested in the talk page. Do you think the badges can be removed now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peer_Community_in&action=history

-- LaFambe (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

LaFambe, hm, I'm not sure I'm seeing the necessary changes; additional third-party citations to some academic papers have been added, but as far as I can tell these sources say very little about Peer Community in, and in most cases do not even fully support the claims that they are attached to in the article. Meanwhile, the Recognition section is overly reliant on primary sources (i.e. organizations saying that they recognize PCi, rather than third-parties reporting that organizations recognize PCi). The "Media coverage" section has a similar issue: it's essentially a list of examples of times that the media has mentioned the subject. A better way to develop the article would be to take the reliable sources cited in the Media coverage and rewrite the article using them as your main source of information, with PCi-affiliated publications used only to provide greater depth to phenomena that the independent sources already draw attention to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

BirajBhattaraiJw

Hi if you take a look at their warnings and repeated creation of promotional articles here you may think a block is in order. All the best Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Katie Britt

I know that you have nominated Katie Britt for deletion. I have no objection with that. I have decided that to create Draft:Katie Britt that redirects to 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama that will be moved to Article namespace if Katie Britt is a candidate in the 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama, which is actually very likely. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, sounds good to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have now decided to improve Katie Britt by replacing the redirect to Richard Shelby with 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama#Republican primary since Britt has an announcement pending in that election. Is that fine? Can we keep the page? Muhibm0307 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, since you're just proposing a new target, I would suggest that you raise that in the RFD discussion so that other editors can weigh in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. Muhibm0307 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Perry Mason episode murderers

added links pointing to Neil Hamilton, Mary Webster, Mary Mitchell and Robin Hughes

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

	The Redirect Barnstar
	for reviewing my redirects! Princess of Ara(talk) 18:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing (those redirects + a question)....

...Harry Elkes and Archie McEachern. I do have a question...should these redirect and the other similar "pages" have
{{Redirect category shell| {{R to list entry}} }} or
{{R from person}} like Edouard Taylor?
Is it a matter of editorial discretion or is there some policy as to which is more correct? At the present time List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death has 8 such redirect-linkages. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Shearonink, it's left up to editorial discretion, although the template documentation (at [[Template:Template Name]] may contain some guidance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking for an essay of yours

I can’t for the life of me remember the name, but it had to do with notability, you didn’t move it to Wikipedia, If I recollect correctly you said you deliberately moved it to your Userspace instead. It’s something about notability and bias or something along those lines, can you help me locate the essay, there’s something important I need to read there. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, was it User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s the one! Yes! Thanks. Celestina007 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Advice regarding an RfC

Hello Rosguill, I'm afraid I need your advice once again. I'm having problems with a user constantly "refactoring" an RfC to remove all discussion. I've asked them to stop doing it but they just did it again. I tried opening a communication channel through their talk page a couple of times but that also failed (see their reply here:[7]). Could you suggest a way to resolve this issue? I would like to avoid escalating the issue but I've tried everything at this point and the behaviour is very disruptive to the discussion. The articles are suffering as a result. Thank you as always for any advice you can give me and sorry for bothering you once again. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, I reverted their last refactor, as it appears to have overstepped what is normally appropriate. You may want to bring this to either AN (to request an uninvolved editor to refactor the page) or ANI (to open a case if there is disruption) if the matter is not resolved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

to remove all discussion is again WP:Casting aspersions, Gtoffoletto, can you please read that. --Almaty (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Almaty: I'm not at all saying you are doing it in bad faith. I think you might not realise how disruptive your behaviour can be to the discussion. I've asked you several times to try to slow down, avoid WP:BLUDGEON (which is not "persuasion, and compromise", don't change other people's comments/discussions, and try to listen to what other editors say. But haven't had any success so far. I do not wish to escalate this matter. Please just try to be more careful in the future. We want the same thing and I'm just trying to help you out.

@Rosguill: as always, thank you for looking into this and for the advice. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

don't change other people's comments/discussions again accusing me of things i have never done. This is what casting aspersions is. You really should monitor your own behaviour before judging others. And eventually if you question yourself enough, you may realise that you have a very odd inability to realise that these particular sentences need WP:COMPENTENCE to get right, and recognise that you have had such behaviours before in May 2020. [8] --Almaty (talk)

Almaty, Gtoffoletto, if you absolutely must continue bickering over this, do it somewhere other than my talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again Rosguill. A portion of the discussion has been removed once again. [9] Do you think it is an appropriate refactor? Any suggestions on how to resolve this peacefully? I'm running out of ideas. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Almaty, may I suggest that you avoid refactoring this discussion, or at least avoid refactors that involve moving other editors' comments to a collapsed section? While refactoring is usually fine, I think it's reasonable for other editors to object to an involved editor moving comments under a collapse header. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision 1027551951 by Muhibm0307 (talk) good faith rv, while I don't have an issue with the actual change here, editors have expressed other opinions in the RfD so we shouldn't remove the tag or change anything until that's been closed by an uninvolved editor

How long will the Rfd last? Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, until an uninvolved editor closes it, generally no more than a week or two. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Two weeks from when you opened it will be June 11, on Friday. Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, sure, but we aren't clockwork and there is no deadline. The editors who typically close RfDs generally keep the backlog under control. I wouldn't worry about this, it will be taken care of in good time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hi Rosguill! I just wanted to thank you for all your effort doing new page patrol. I imagine it must get pretty tedious reviewing the redirect pages I create. ;) Thanks! — SpikeToronto 12:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Need some help for CSD nomination of a redirect page

Hi, I was working on some reorganization of US House of Representatives election pages and came across some redirect pages which should be deleted in order to move other articles to that name. So, I've nominated them per WP:G6. This is important as all US House elections use a set of templates which are not consistent with the election articles on District of Columbia.

Therefore I wish to move:

• 2006 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2006 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia
• 2008 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2008 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia
• 2010 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2010 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia
• 2012 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2012 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia
• 2014 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2014 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia
• 2016 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2016 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia
• 2018 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2018 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia
• 2020 United States House of Representatives election in the District of Columbia to 2020 United States House of Representatives election in District of Columbia

But the latter in all of the above cases is already a redirect page, which needs to be deleted in order to make the move. As already mentioned in the nominations, the word "the" is not used for any other state/territory election. Furthermore the articles on the Mayoral & AG elections in District of Columbia do not contain the word "the" either. And this inconsistency is causing some templates to break down.

Sorry, if I disturbed but I came here because you're in the page history of each of these redirect page, and also an administrator who can help me by deleting those redirect pages so that I can continue with my reorganization stuff. Thank you. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

CX Zoom,  Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – CX Zoom (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Marked a draft as patrolled by mistake.

Hey @Rosguill, Hope you are doing well. Actually I was reviewing a Draft from my cell phone. I marked the draft as patrolled by mistake. What to do know? Sorry to bother you. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 04:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Iflaq, I don't see any review record in the logs so my guess is that while the reviewing UI showed up and you clicked it, it didn't actually do anything, I wouldn't worry about it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, I guess you checked my curation log. Kindly have a look at my patrol log. Here. Once again sorry to bother you & Thankyou for your help. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 07:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Iflaq, I checked the log of the page itself, which should be the only one that matters as far as releasing results to search engines is concerned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, Is there any way to unpatrol it? As it was a mistake. Thankyou. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 02:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Iflaq, no, but as I said, don't worry about it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill, Thankyou 🙂 _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 03:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

NPP Page Curation

Hi Rosguill, I hope you are well. I thought I'd approach you because you seem like one of the most active NPP editors, and we have interacted before. I created this article called Universe of Mass Effect more then a month ago. I have since created further content after this article, which has already been reviewed by various NPP members, but as far as I know no one has reviewed this one so far and I am not sure how to bring it to the attention of someone. Just wondering if you could look it over when you eventually have the time, thanks. Haleth (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Haleth, it is in the new pages queue and is awaiting a reviewer, and is likely to be reviewed within two months based on the length of the queue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Another editor has discussed the possibility of doing a GA review of the article, so I thought I'd touch base with the NPP as it apparently hasn't been curated yet. Haleth (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Haleth, feel free to go ahead with GA plans, they're not dependent on NPP, which exists primarily as a gatekeeper before articles get released to search engines for indexing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

NPR Rights and marking COI pages as reviewed

Hey, following up here as suggested. FIrst of all, thank you for acknowledging my efforts on assessing notability. I agree Christian Sarkar was a slip. I should have probed more when the creator asked for help at my talk page [10]. However, other than that, the mistake that I have made is that I didn't unreview the pages after I placed the tag. For example, Kiefer (musician) was a notability tag, Rachel Ikemeh was BLP unsourced tag, Simulate (company) was a notability tag. Others also have a similar story (some tag or the other) I didn't know that the pages get auto-reviewed if I put a tag on them or if I CSD/PROD/AFD them. So them being reviewed was not intentional. This was also bought to my notice by another senior editor [11]. After that, I have understood this and I have made a note to ensure that I am unreviewing them if I am placing a tag.

I also want to highlight that in case I have doubts, I do ask this question. For example, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

That being said and done, I would still like to learn more on how to identify a COI and what should be the course of action if I feel there is COI. I enjoy reviewing new pages. It also helps me polish my editing skills and is a great logical reasoning exercise for brain. So I hope you will be considerate to understand that what seems like a massive slip, was more of an ignorance on a certain aspect which had led to this. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, the situation right now is that the main area where you would need to improve in order to do NPP is COI-spotting; unfortunately, we need to be cautious about how public we make information related to catching COI editors, as there is high potential for abuse by undisclosed paid editors. As you have only been editing for a few months, I can't in good conscience provide you with COI-spotting lessons at this time. In order for that to change, I would need to see a track record of editing from you that demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that you are here to build the encyclopedia in good faith, and not a paid editor putting in their dues to subvert our content approval processes. In practice, that would mean keeping up a habit of making constructive edits for a relatively long time, a year at a minimum, before either requesting instruction in anti-COI work or asking for another trial run (if you think you've gotten enough experience spotting COI just from your normal editing work). I know this isn't what you want to hear from me at this time, but please do not take it personally: this is unfortunately just the level of caution that we are forced to take given the dimensions of Wikipedia as a project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Rosguill, I think my talk page is a testimony of my intentions and efforts here. I have tried to help each and every editor who has come to me and given detailed feedbacks and helped them. I have also improved many drafts who were close to being accepted (and other reviewers felt same) and have simply submitted those for other reviewers to accept. This is surely what I didn't expect to hear but I will try to see it from your point of view and empathise. It is important that we are cautious. I am slightly discouraged but won't let it come in way of doing what I was already doing. Will also keep a close watch for COI-spotting. Might tag you or reach out to you for questions if that's okay? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, thanks for understanding and feel free to reach out to me with further questions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Rosguill , very interestingly I found the first page I wanted to ask help on. I was reviewing pages and found Draft:Zest AI which seemed notable to me (I am yet to do a complete assessment to determine if it is notable or not). I suspected that there might be a COI and voila, the user page [17] of the creator declared that they were associated with the company. How do we take it ahead from here? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, so given that they've declared the COI and are submitting the article through AfC, they're actually following all of our rules regarding COI editing. At this point, the only things to do differently from a normal AfC review would be to be a bit stricter about ensuring that the article is neutrally written (at a glance this draft looked fine to me, FWIW), and do some independent research about the subject online to make sure that the article isn't omitting DUE negative coverage (a WP:BEFORE style search should be enough to fulfill this). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad, The problem with teaching COI detection to editors is exactly as Rosguill stated. It leaves a loophole where bad faith editors can scrutinize our methods and learn to circumvent detection, I don’t even recommend any of such teachings to be done on-wiki, (For me, I’d rather share my experience/methods via e-mail, and strictly to admins or trusted co-anti spam editors who have a track record of nabbing UPE), having said, if you want to tell COI in any given article, then reading WP:ADMASQ would give you the fundamentals you need. Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Celestina007 for dropping here. Always promising to see your presence around. I see what you are saying but this seems to be a typical job & work experience paradox. You need work-ex to get a job. But you need a job to get work-ex! Nonetheless, I have started to be more cautious and being extra careful. Dropped a notice to one user [18] who was very persistent with a page that he clearly seemed to have a connection with. Also did a mistake with another one [19] to which I whole-heartedly apologized. But I think I am making some progress. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi! Rosguill, I am thankful to you for reviewing Levantine (cloth), Schappe, Colchester bays and Compound fabric and many more. Regards RV (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested

I contested the speedy deletion on Draft:VII (musician). ReaIdiot (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ReaIdiot, not sure why you contacted me about this, but it looks like the situation has been resolved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)