User talk:Rosguill/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

WikiEditor1234567123

Removed text from the encyclopedia again in this article Ingush societies 1. And then the text began to change. Apparently, this provokes me on purpose. Although there the text was neutral Galashkinskoe naibstvo. Товболатов (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Here too this member deleted the text Muqale Ghalghaï 1 I'm sure by such methods they will delete information in other articles everywhere.--Товболатов (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Above, these participants accuse me of nationalist edits. Although they themselves know well, the bulk of the Ingush and Chechens believe that the Chechens and Ingush are one brotherly people. I did not contribute anything nationalist. Only two peoples in the world speak the same language Chechens and Ingush. I consider these false accusations against me.--Товболатов (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

According to them, this is also a nationalist article Nakh peoples.--Товболатов (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Товболатов, the refusal to acknowledge an ethnic group and adding selective and dubious sources to make it seem like they stem from another ethnic group is a perfect example of nationalist editing and exactly what you have been doing (spamming) on these Ingush-related articles: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Muqale (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill May I know why the sanctions were applied only to me, and not to other participants. For nationalist accusations and more than two kickbacks?--Товболатов (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If I knew it was spam, I wouldn't do it. These were the usual edits in my opinion. I won't do that.--Товболатов (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No, Товболатов the last straw for you was the string of edits I pointed out on your talk page: Special:Diff/1139722862, Special:Diff/1139722968, Special:Diff/1139723019, Special:Diff/1139723084, Special:Diff/1139723110, Special:Diff/1139723167, Special:Diff/1139723254, Special:Diff/1139723211. Spamming the same content across a half dozen articles is pretty clear cut tendentious editing. At this point, you've been warned multiple times to be on your best behavior: your failure to anticipate that this is unacceptable is not an excuse anymore. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, if you had warned me, I would not have done this. Okay, now how to solve this.? This may be a warning. I am no longer going to edit Ingush articles. I don't know why I was the only one to blame. WikiEditor1234567123 just check out his contribution, it's not just me that's the edit war. Constant war of edits and he deliberately decided to drag me into the admin panel because the other participant stopped responding. He came in and started editing to spite me. Yes, it's my fault that I succumbed to the provocation.--Товболатов (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well thanks for your great patience. Still, I feel guilty.--Товболатов (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill you can reconsider your original decision. I didn't do it on purpose, but I don't know. In the future, I will not repeat spam mailings.--Товболатов (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not changing my mind this time. Editors, and particularly editors editing contentious topics, are expected to be able to read our policy and guideline pages and come to appropriate conclusions about what is and isn't disruptive editing. You should not need a bespoke warning to not spam the same text across 8 different pages, all in relation to a clear, ongoing dispute with another editor, and the fact that you chose to carry out these edits despite having received several general warnings to be on your best behavior tells me that either you are intentionally trying to game the system or you lack the sufficient skills to edit contentious topics on Wikipedia. I'm further concerned about your English-language communication skills, as several of your comments here and at AN suggest to me that you are relying on translation software to make contributions here and may not always understand the full implications of what others are telling you (or alternatively, of what you're writing) to a point that leads to continuous (if unintentional) disruption.

I would suggest working on less-contentious topics on en.wiki, or focusing on editing Wikipedia in languages you are more familiar with, and seeking appeal only once you've built up a track record of positive contributions that demonstrate that my above concerns no longer apply. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

As I came to the English project in 2020, you can check my first edits, I did not argue and did not participate in wars, as you can see from the first edits of this member with whom he fought WikiEditor1234567123 (he made many more destructive than me). Seeing the obvious falsification and forgery, I warned the administrators. They offered to check the first participant, as expected, it turned out to be a Dzurdzuki doll. Then I noticed that this participant was also engaged in WikiEditor1234567123 forgery, as a result, three articles were deleted for false information. In Russian, such a violation is immediately blocked. But here I was the one to blame. Okay, I understand I need to gain experience... --Товболатов (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384. 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Galashkinskoe Naibstvo

Добрый вечер! Я думаю эту статью должны редактировать незаинтересованные участники. Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain why do you remove text "Ingush" which is proven by the two sources scited in the end of the sentence? I also don't understand why do you resort to mockery:

[9][10][11][12][13][14]. I really don't appreciate these hateful comments towards Ingush people. You also add unrelated text for some reason:[15]. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123, my user talk page is not the place for these inquires. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Да, больше незаинтересованные всегда приветствуется, но незаинтересованные не значит безсылокие _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

NPP redirect autopatrol list

I noticed that Dsuke1998AEOS's redirects are not being autopatrolled, despite them being on the NPP redirect autopatrol list. Could this have anything to do with their entry on the autopatrol list being the only one that uses {{user}} instead of {{user2}}? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, good catch on that, I've gone ahead and fixed it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Question.

Hello Rosguill, I would like to ask you to help me with my articles that are currently under consideration, how can I speed up the process of reviewing my articles? Targimhoï (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Targimhoï The best way to speed up the review process is to make sure that the articles are as high-quality as possible, particularly with respect to their sources. Unfortunately, we have comparatively few reviewers who are comfortable assessing Russian academic sources, so it may be a somewhat slow process for the specific articles you have created recently. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Two additional thoughts specific to the articles you have created: to establish the notability of an "Ethnic group X in location Y" topic, make sure the cited sources go beyond simply confirming that people of that ethnicity live there, and provide detailed coverage of the group's history and activities in the location. I'd also recommend titling the pages "Ingush people in...", rather than "Ingushes in...", as that's more standard phrasing in English. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you speed up this process? The articles are already in the Russian Wikipedia, and they are almost the same.Targimhoï (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I don't review articles on request as a matter of personal policy. That having been said, I note that the articles you're concerned about are all in Draft space awaiting WP:AFC review--this is a process that is optional for editors that have more than a few edits and do not have a WP:COI, which at this point describes you. You are allowed to just move the article to mainspace yourself at this point, where it will receive a further round of review from WP:NPP before being released to search engines. That review backlog is much quicker right now, so it should be reviewed in less than a month. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand you, I just wanted to clarify, that is, can I publish an article in the public domain on my own? If so, how do I do it?Targimhoï (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

See H:MOVE for instructions on how to move an article from draft to article space. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ana Juneja

Hello Rosguill. Just a follow-up for an old draftification of yours. A couple of months later, the same editor moved it back to mainspace. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle Looks like it's a different account, looking at the page history? Although it's more than a little weird that the original account responded to the COI inquiry 2 weeks ago, then proceeded to make no further edits to the article, and now a brand new account shows up. Seems somewhat duck-like. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. It appears that I did get the accounts mixed up, and it was a new account who moved the declined draft to mainspace. What do you suggest can be done here please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

At this point, the article has been tagged for {{notability}}, then marked as reviewed by another editor. I've left COI disclosure requests for the editors involved in creating/reviving the article, and at this point I think it can be left alone unless someone tries to remove the notability tag without otherwise improving sourcing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

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

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

• Fuhghettaboutit
• Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPP Training

For the past two years, I have actively contributed to the English Wikipedia. As per Wikipedia's User Access Roles Policy, I am interested in applying for the role of a new page reviewer. I have a good understanding of the responsibilities and significance of this role. To ensure that this role is not misused, I would like to participate in the NPP training program. Would you be able to assist me as a trainer?Endrabcwizart (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Endrabcwizart, I don't think I have the capacity right now to take on another student. It also looks like some of your recent contributions were moved to draft space due to WP:UPE/WP:COI concerns, but you don't appear to have responded to the inquiries. I'm going to leave a new notice on your page that provides full instructions for how to address and comply with such concerns, as it would not be appropriate for you to begin NPPSCHOOl while COI/UPE concerns remain. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

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

Administrator changes

Spicy

• Ale jrb
• Dbachmann
• DGG (deceased)
• Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes

Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes

Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation project to improve PageTriage

Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I also just wanted to thank you for taking the time to meet with us. We'd value your input on whether we've captured everything important or if there's anything still missing. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I'll take a look at the results when I get a chance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Question on WP:UPNOT

Hi Rosguill! I read about the the second paragraph in WP:UPNOT and I have a question on it. The paragraph says:

“ In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. ”

First of all, I am aware that all policies (or at least the majority of them) are the results of consensus. So can you show me where the archive of the discussion that led to this policy is? Or if it wasn't reached by consensus, then are there any rules or laws that it is based on? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Đại Việt quốc, I can't say that I'm personally familiar with the history of that page, but I imagine that you will find the answers to your questions in the archives of Wikipedia talk:User pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, the Vietnamese Wikipedia translated this policy page to their project. Currently another user (A) is writing several "essays" in their own user space, and a majority of them was attacking me. I reported them to the noticeboard regarding the violation of WP:UPNOT and an administrator (I mean, to be exact, the only one being active) stated that this policy (the paragraph above) does not apply because it was a translated policy from enwp and no consensus has been reached. In other words, you are free to attack other users on your user space in viwp and will not violate anything. When I asked for another administrator to reconsider this, I got blocked indefinitely. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds quite problematic indeed--it is worth noting that each separate language Wikipedia project is independent, so even if you find the original basis for the policy on en.wiki, vi.wiki is allowed to make its own decisions that contradict en.wiki's position (that isn't to say that people on vi.wiki won't care about the history of the policy, but "in principle", each project gets to decide on their policies as long as they're within the parameters of the broader Wikimedia movement's principles). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

TetrahedronX8

Surely not competent to edit and NOTHERE? Doug Weller talk 14:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and actually was watching their contributions page yesterday afternoon to be able to block them if they made any further disruption. They don't appear to have made any further edits since then. However, when trying to look them up this morning, I came across User:TetrahedronX7, which is pretty transparently the same person. It seems like a case of lost credentials rather than intentional sockpuppetry given the dates of activity, but it also establishes that they've been engaged in their pointless sealioning since 2018, which I think is sufficient justification for a block now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, well spotted. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Proposed decision mentioning you

Hi Rosguill, in the open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. 

You are not directly affected by any proposed sanction; this is just for your information.
Your name appears on the page only once: "On 12 June 2022, Abrvagl was warned for edit warring by Rosguill", with a link to the log entry.

Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Juan Branco 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 16:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chicago CRED 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 19:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Russian sources

Hello Rosguill. I had a question regarding the Russian sources and was unsure of how they should be written. Should the source be written like 1 or 2?

1:

• Албогачиева, М. С.-Г. (2015). Горы и границы: Этнография посттрадиционных обществ [Mountains and Borders: An Ethnography of Post-Traditional Societies] (in Russian). СПб.: Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого (Кунсткамера) РАН. pp. 1–400. ISBN 978-5-88431-290-6.

2:

• Albogachieva, M. S.-G. (2015). Горы и границы: Этнография посттрадиционных обществ [Mountains and Borders: An Ethnography of Post-Traditional Societies] (in Russian). SP.: Мuzey antropologii I etnografii im. Petra Velikogo (Kunstkamera) RAN. pp. 1–400. ISBN 978-5-88431-290-6. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

So, each of these is defensible, and I think the most important decision is to stay consistent within a given article. My personal preference on Wikipedia (and other primarily-online platforms) is that keeping the Cyrillic is better, as even non-Russian-speaking readers can copy and paste the text to continue working with it. Transliteration is more important for print collections in libraries where non-speakers (or historically, speakers without access to Cyrillic typefaces) would potentially have to look up works with limited tools. There's also a lot of issues that can be introduced in transliteration due to different existing standards (there's like 5 different widely-used romanization methods for Russian, and then there's slightly different ones for each other Slavic language written in Cyrillic) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne

I'm not sure if you noticed that seven minutes after you closed "Block review: WikiWikiWayne" at WP:AN, WWW archived it. I reverted the archiving and left him a warning on his Talk page that he should not be archiving a thread in which he was prominently involved. A few hours ago he archived it again without responding to my warning. I have a few choices (in no particular order): (1) do nothing; (2) unarchive it and give him a "final" warning; (3) unarchive it and block him; (4) bring him to ANI; (5) something else. What are your thoughts? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, the landscape has altered. WWW has now responded on his Talk page (and altered the section header I created when I warned him). You should probably read User talk:WikiWikiWayne#Archive revert at WP:AN by admin Bbb23. I'm now much less inclined toward option #1.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23. Please slow your roll, and assuming intent. I'm not *that* guy that is stuck in your mind. You are harming me. I am on the Wiki in good faith, so please stand down. Thank you. Going forward, you are on notice not to continue to defame me online. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 13:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill – Barring an accused editor from replying to online defamation is just weird, and it's tampering. That being said, I assume that you thought it was in good faith. It is not. You blocked an active editor from actively neutralizing online defamation. Okay, enough said. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 13:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Rosguill, I've opened a thread at WP:ANI about WWW. I mentioned you several times in the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

The very first line of DEPRECATED describes Tucker Carlson to a tee... "highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstance".

I am also not seeing any proof that depreciation exists solely for when Wikipedia is having a big problem preventing the use of "generally unreliable" sources. Clearly from the text, it is a judgement, a message that a non-deprecated use is somehow more usable or acceptable under certain circumstances.

Lastly, since my proposal did have clear support, and opposition wasn't exactly firm, I certainly think it's a stretch to say it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. I find that deeply concerning in fact, given the effect your solitary decision has on shutting down any possibility Carlson can or should ever be deprecated. I do not think one person should have that much power to influence Wikipedia in such a big way. Carlson is already having a huge influence on the upcoming election (the British op-ed I found having been written precisely because of how crazy that is), so I hope you are comfortable with having set a precedent in Wikipedia up to and perhaps beyond that election.

If necessary, I can have a Wikipedia editor make this proposal on my behalf, to get around your clearly improper use of my status as an outsider to prevennt me from influencing how Wikipedia deals with a clearly unacceptable source like Carlson going forward. Jango Borundia (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You're chasing after a non-problem, for various reasons already explained in the thread itself, and your message here displays a lot of misunderstandings regarding how and when source reliability discussions are conducted. Which is totally understandable, our methods are confusing to newcomers and a lot of the discussion at RSN is governed by implicit norms emerging organically from practice, not explicit documentation on policy-and-guideline pages. I closed the discussion because the proposal was procedurally a non-starter due to the existing generally-unreliable consensus for Fox News talk shows and the absence of evidence that there was a problem that needs solving related to the use of Tucker Carlson on Wikipedia; separate from that evaluation, I noted your editing history because, bluntly, you are not welcome to waste people's time in pointless RSN discussions if you have made zero contributions to the encyclopedia itself. If you want to be involved in source reliability discussions, you need to demonstrate that you're here to edit and build an encyclopedia. If you fail to do that and continue to waste people's time, you will end up blocked eventually. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Since at least one experienced Wikipedia editor supported the proposal, and another expressed sympathy for it, I find your reading of the situation to be quite unsound, certainly enough to cast doubt on the wisdom of you shutting it down so hard. Clearly the unwritten or indeed written rules are not as clear as you think, and I am not in error simply for being an outsider.

Without wishing to be blocked for further wasting people's time, and definitely without seeking to flout your decision, I am going to seek some clarity on the issues your abrupt and unilateral act seem to have left unanswered. If that is not permitted, then I genuinely wonder when exactly it was that Wikipedia became such a closed shop. Jango Borundia (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that your request for clarification was removed by another editor--I do want to respond to one of your concerns, however, regarding precedent, which is to say that this discussion being closed in no way sets a precedent that we can't deprecate Tucker Carlson. If and when evidence can be provided that Carlson is being misused as a citation on Wikipedia, a deprecation discussion would be in order.

It's also worth noting that from a technical standpoint, deprecating an individual person (who is primarily known for their work at a news company that isn't just their own blog) is not implementable mechanically: Daily Mail's deprecation involves an edit filter that checks against the DM's URL; unless all of Tucker Carlson's material is hosted at a unique and consistently demarcated section of Fox's website (e.g., something like "carlson.fox.com/loremipsum" or "fox.com/tuckercarlson/loremipsum"), there's nothing we can do to enforce deprecation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Any technical measure that is checking for a url, is obviously easily defeated by simply not using a url (I've just asked, and been reassured this happens). And it is pretty obvious Tucker has at least one url you could be detecting, his Twitter handle. Absent any proof the distinction is merely technical, and seeing how absurd it is for you to talk about proving a problem on a board that I have twice been shut out of before I could even provide the proof, I think the only truth here is that not even you know what any of this means. But you chose to exercise great power as if you do. Established editors will fare no better I am sure. You don't even acknowledge them if they contradict you in their beliefs, clearly. Jango Borundia (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Potential multiple accounts use

Hello Rosguill, hope you are well, this editor has been edit warring on several pages related to Bulgaria for years now [[16]] including pages like List of wars involving Bulgaria usually inserting WP:OR edits, sometimes after ip would appeared with the same geolocation doing the same thing [[17]], [[18]] there are much more of them, and now just recently, this account appeared on the same page [[19]]. I believe that they are the same person. Would you be willing to check it? Thank you on your response. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Theonewithreason I'm not a WP:CU so you should file a request at WP:SPI. N.b. clerks at SPI will appreciate it if you spell out your reasoning as to why you think the accounts are related in a bit more detail than the above text (side by side diffs showing identical edits or patterns of speech by the two accounts are a great way to organize things). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Habsburg monarchy 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 11:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Nice close on the Russian invasion page rename. I've just noticed that there was a sub-RfC attached to the main RfC which you just closed which asked for a moratorium on the name change requests. After reading them twice, then I am seeing some consensus on a short moratorium of 2-3 months, if I combine all the supports requesting a 1-year moratorium and a 6-month moratorium as combined with the 2-3 moratorium requests. It seems like it might make sense to close the sub-RfC to the main one you just closed as including a 2 month moratorium on further name changes. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually didn't close the discussion, I just actioned the move post-closure since it required an admin or page-mover to remove the redirect blocking the move. You should take this up with Born2cycle, who was the one who closed both discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Finished NPP school section

Sorry it took so long! I was just burnt out on Wikipedia for a while and was busy with actual school.

Asparagusus (interaction) 18:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Hiya. Was going to restore this here redirect as part of NPP, but there appears to be a fairly lively edit war going on. Any advice? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. Now it's at ANI... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Just trying to clarify the legitimacy of an editor's tactic. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Batch redirect review

Hey Rosguill,

A user (Saad Ali Khan Pakistan) has done quite a bit of page renaming in an effort to update the redrawn Constituencies of Pakistan. Would it be possible to have them temporarily added to the redirect autopatroll list to have the 300+ redirects completed at once? I don't want to request them for full redirect AP at this time, but I know you have, at times, temporarily added users to have batches completed. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, seems reasonable. I've added them to the list and will remove them once the bot cycles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

2001 insurgency in Macedonia

The Mujahideen stuff was first added to the infobox in November 2022 [20] and since then has been removed and readded many times by several editors. Hence its addition does not have consensus. I expect from an experienced admin like you to do more than just revert to a controversial addition that has been contested so much. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 The content was introduced with new sources on February 7th and stood uncontested until late March. In the absence of a prior discussion opposing the inclusion (and, prior to a few days ago, the only discussion about the inclusion of Mujahideen ended with comments in favor of inclusion), that's implicit consensus status quo ante. The only reason I'm not stepping in to lock editing on the page is because the include-Mujahideen position is somewhat tendentious unless/until WP:DUE information about Mujahideen presence is included in the body of the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see new sources being added on February 7, and in any case it was contested on February 10 [21] - 3 days later. It has been added and removed from the infobox more than 15 times, what kind of "status quo" is that? Consensus, as you know better than me, is not decided by the number or timing of the reverts, but by what reliable sources say. Some sources treat the Mujahideen involvement as a fact, other sources say it is a claim made by the Macedonian side of the conflict. Such things should be explained in one of the sections of the article, instead of misleading readers in the infobox. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by discussion, go focus on the one currently on the article talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That is my point: you should not revert to the version you want by just mentioning a "status quo" - you have done it there more than once. If you want you can provide your arguments based on sources on the talk page. Otherwise you are just getting involved in edit warring. You are already involved in the dispute; you doing more reverts or protecting the article do not look like a good idea. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not involved here, my extent of edits to the article have only been to break-up or mediate disputes, and to propose the merger of content from other WP:CFORK articles that ulttmately resulted to no change to the article's content. I don't intend to use admin tools at this time for the reason I already stated in my first reply. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Readding the contested Mujahideen stuff to the infobox three times does not show you as uninvolved. Anyways, it is not important as long as you do not use the admin tools to impact the content dispute. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Scientific racism 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 17:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Malformed RfD

Hi there. Hate to bug you, I sent When Laura smiles to RfD, but I noticed a failed message during the process. The template is there, but I do not see it on today's list. Not sure what to do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969, took me a few tries to figure it out--looks like someone accidentally removed some text at the March 31 RfD page that the XfD script is dependent on. It should be working now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, I was thinking that if this happened to me, perhaps it happened to others and they didn't notice it. Not sure if there's any way to check?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the error in the code was introduced in Special:Diff/1147460755, so any attempts to use the XfD script between then and my fix 14 hours later would have hit the same error that you found. That having been said, they would have hit the fail message, so they should at least be aware of the situation. It looks like relists were able to function normally despite the issue, based on some of the intervening edits. We could manually go through the back of the new pages feed to see if there's any pages with RfD tags that don't have discussions set up... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Kool FM/London

Hi Rosguill, you often edit radio related articles, are you able to help with this, see talk page User_talk:77.86.103.78 - basically Kool FM becomes Kool London for ten years or so, then reverts back to Kool FM. Cut and Paste moves are frowned upon it appears 77.86.103.78 (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Since it's not clear to me that the move you're proposing is uncontroversial, you should follow the steps listed at WP:PCM to solicit more input. If there's a consensus for your suggestion, the move will be taken care of after the discussion is concluded. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of St. Mary's church, İzmir

A tag has been placed on St. Mary's church, İzmir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There are two Saint Mary's Catholic Churches in İzmir, the other one is being located at Bornova.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Veselov350 ^💬 18:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

School up north

Other rivalries may use That School Up North, or The School Up North (which still redirects to OSU-Michigan, BTW), but it is still most associated with the Woody Hayes era at Ohio State. I would posit that the vast majority of users looking up that phrase would expect to be sent to that particular rivalry. DarkAudit (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the results I see when searching online are for Ole Miss, let's take this to RfD for a clearer consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews

Dear Rosguill, you recently reviewed four Wikipedia's redirects that I created; I just would like to say you: thank you very much!! 7e8y (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

• Ddstretch
• Prodego
• Resolute

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Autry Technology Center

Thanks for your input on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autry Technology Center page. Please see my response there. TulGuy (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Fairfield Stags softball Notability Tag

Hello! I hope all is going well. I'm reaching out to ask if you could check and see if the page I've been working on, Fairfield Stags softball, still does not meet WP:GNG standards. The tag was added before I was able to fill out the history section a little bit. I would like to expand it at some point in the future further although I'm working on a couple of other projects in the realm of college softball so it's not my #1 priority. I'm asking you if you can check because you placed the tag. Hopefully it meets the standards or at least is closer to meeting those standards. If it is not, I'll definitely work on it further. Thank you in advance! Mannytool (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Mannytool, thanks for checking in. In my view, it's still borderline as-written: among the sources listed, the only ones that could be considered independent and secondary are BVMSports, Montgomery Advisor and WAFB. Among those, it's not clear to me that BVMSports can be considered reliable, as their About Us page does not disclose any information about their editorial team/practices, and I'm not seeing a track record of WP:USEBYOTHERS outside of some generally-unreliable sources like the New York Post. So that leaves us with two sources that contribute towards notability, but both of which are hampered by their a) local news focus (a weaker sign of notability than coverage in a national or international paper) and b) that they cover individual games that the team played in, rather than a history of the program more broadly (which would provide much more material for us to write an article with). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, it's appreciated. What would you suggest I add that could strengthen the notoriety/credibility of the article? Sources primarily or other things as well? I've been on Wikipedia for over 8 years but have only recently tried my hand at page creating/massive additions like what I'm doing with Fairfield's page. Any advice/suggestions are much appreciated. Mannytool (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability is just a question of the available sourcing. The ideal source for an article like this would be a peer-reviewed article about the team and its history in a sports studies journal, but mass market or journalistic sources would be fine as well. In particular, anything that can give a description of the scope of Fairfield Stags softball beyond individual games is what you'd want to look for. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Request to resume my NPPSchool

Hi Rosguill,

I hope you're doing well! My old username was Angus1986(followed by AngusMEOW), and I was previously active in the NPP School on Wikipedia about 1-2 years ago. Unfortunately, I had to take a break due to some health-related issues. I'm happy to say that I've recovered and am excited to get back to contributing to the community.

I kindly request your assistance in resuming my involvement with the NPP School. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated as I reintegrate myself and continue learning. I'm looking forward to being an active and positive contributor once again.

Thank you for your time and support. Angus Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 17:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, feel free to continue work at your existing NPPSCHOOL page _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Russian sources

Hello Rosguill. I once again had a question regarding the Russian sources. If the source is written with Russian pre-reform letters, should they be changed to the modern day corresponding Russian letters? For example, should "Старчевскій" be changed to "Старчевский" and "Сборникъ свѣдѣній о кавказскихъ горцахъ" to "Сборник сведений о кавказских горцах"? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123, much like the last question, I'm not aware of any established Wikipedia guidelines for this, and the most important thing for our articles is consistency within each article. My sense would be that preserving the old-style spellings is preferable when dealing with a pre-reform text; English-language library standards are a bit odd for transliteration of pre-reform Russian (the convention is to transcribe ѣ as "ie" with a ligature over it, but to drop off -ъ suffixes from the transliteration entirely), which motivates me to recommend sticking to the original lettering for simplicity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Rosguill,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

How?

You reviewed 1,5-Pentanediol. What did you find? I am just curious about this activity.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I found it to be an appropriate redirect to its target and checked it off as reviewed. If the redirect had been inappropriate, I would have either changed its target or sent it to RfD for further discussion. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects for more detail about what new page reviewers are looking for when reviewing redirects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

L'amour Supreme

Please do not delete my page. I spent hours and hours creating it. I did not plagiarize and no one paid me to do it. I referenced everything. I don't understand what I did wrong. Bigcurl254 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see the responses at your talk page. You have now twice submitted an article whose content was an exact copy of this website. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)