ZaniGiovanni (talk | contribs) →If you're interested: Reply Tag: Reply |
→If you're interested: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
::::3) Finally, they repeated the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling&diff=1094059682&oldid=1092972593&diffmode=source same thing] in the above [[2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling]], asking (again) to reinstate ''their own'' edit (which basically means [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling&diff=1091272818&oldid=1085695361&diffmode=source removing] Kadyrova) despite not launching the RfC yet or having any consensus, and not agreeing to the simple changes proposed on talk either. |
::::3) Finally, they repeated the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling&diff=1094059682&oldid=1092972593&diffmode=source same thing] in the above [[2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling]], asking (again) to reinstate ''their own'' edit (which basically means [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling&diff=1091272818&oldid=1085695361&diffmode=source removing] Kadyrova) despite not launching the RfC yet or having any consensus, and not agreeing to the simple changes proposed on talk either. |
||
::::I'm having a very unpleasant and difficult time of editing because of this user; their hounding, their repeated [[WP:CIR]], their misunderstanding (?) of what paraphrasing means and basic English, and so on. Do I really need to open another AE for this? Courtesy pinging [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]]. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 21:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
::::I'm having a very unpleasant and difficult time of editing because of this user; their hounding, their repeated [[WP:CIR]], their misunderstanding (?) of what paraphrasing means and basic English, and so on. Do I really need to open another AE for this? Courtesy pinging [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]]. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 21:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{u|ZaniGiovanni}}, I think filing an AE case is the most appropriate way forward--while at a glance the allegations you raise here do seem concerning to me, I'd prefer to evaluate them together with responses from Abrvagl. For the record, I would be willing to act without an AE report if there was something blatantly against the letter of prior warnings or core policies, but the concerns enumerated here don't seem to rise to that level. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Nicolai L. Volodos == |
== Nicolai L. Volodos == |
Revision as of 23:17, 20 June 2022
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Deletions not deleting
Hi Rosguill. Just so you know, when you closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23 § Chakra(Naruto) as delete, the redirect didn't actually get deleted, I assume due to the ongoing issues with XFDcloser. A similar thing happened previously with your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16 § Military journalist. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ack, I thought those issues had been resolved. Fixed for this page at least. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- And there's Frivolous as well (RfD). – Uanfala (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I've had a sweep at the remaining leftover redirects, and for the following two discussions deletion hasn't come through: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_3#High_Princess_(Stache) and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_3#Areo_Magazine. – Uanfala (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Taken care of, thanks for all the work you put into this. signed, Rosguill talk 15:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
for taking the time to review the articles I started! All my best, Lewolka (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
"Fish friday" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fish friday and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Fish friday until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey there
It’s been a minute since we last interacted and i thought it wise to check up on you. I trust all is well. 💗 Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Celestina007, nice to hear from you. It's been a busy few months outside Wikipedia but I think I'm finally getting back on top of everything. All good on your end? signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I understand you perfectly, knowing that you are in good health has put my mind to rest. As for me, asides attending the funeral service of a loved one, all is great for me. Nice 'hearing' from you mate. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for reviewing this article I wrote. Do you think it could be returned to become independent article? Thank you, Atbannett (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Atbannett, I reviewed the redirect created after the article was removed, not the article you wrote, and that review is not in itself and endorsement of the decision to blank-and-redirect the article. Looking at the old revision now, I do agree with the editor that BLAR-ed it, because as written it cited no independent references. This is a helpful summary of our article inclusion guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Page protection request
Hello I believe that this 2 new ip [[1]],[[2]] are the same person who continue to post unsourced and biased edits and reverts on Karađorđe page. Can you please protect the page ? Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:46 02.May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:51 02.May 2022 (UTC)
multiple means more than one
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple consisting of, including, or involving more than one
The General Notability Guidelines are met if two reliable sources cover something in significant detail. Please revert your notability tag added at [3]. There are countless thousands of articles that only have two reliable sources covering them. Dream Focus 06:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:THREE is a pretty common interpretation of the minimum requirement, so I disagree with your interpretation. If you can provide a third source I have no issue with the tag being removed. signed, Rosguill talk 13:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:Three is an essay and on someone's user page, not even getting enough support to be its own essay article. And the guy writing it has clarified that what he meant was too many references to look through, just post the three best ones in the AFD to make your case, and that it was just his personal opinion. So not really something you should go by. Dream Focus 15:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- nu, you're wikilawyering at this point, it's well-established that the "multiple" clause in GNG is intentionally left underspecified and that 3 sources is a common interpretation; personally I usually interpret that as license to allow for fewer sources if the sources are of exceptionally good quality. At any rate, I'm not particularly invested in the specific article you've brought up with me, so you can go ahead and remove the tag if you please. But I don't see a need to self-revert my edit, as it accurately reflects my perspective on notability guidelines which I am quite confident is within parameters accepted by the Wikipedia community. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:Three is an essay and on someone's user page, not even getting enough support to be its own essay article. And the guy writing it has clarified that what he meant was too many references to look through, just post the three best ones in the AFD to make your case, and that it was just his personal opinion. So not really something you should go by. Dream Focus 15:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
An user is vandalizing a Wikipedia article.
Hello, there is a problem with a Wikipedia user (User 176.64.12.188). He has been providing misinformation in the Uyghur Americans article. He exaggerates the figures for that ethnic group, since the figures he includes are much higher than those that appear in the article's sources. He has basically substituted the original quantitative data from that community, which is based on the included sources, for other data, and he has done that several times. Although I have reverted his data, he puts it back. He's basically vandalizing the article.--Isinbill (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of the page, I realized that I made a mistake: This user was not the first to enter the wrong data. He just put them back on. I have already notified, on the user's page, that these data are not correct.--Isinbill (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Request for RfD comment
Hello. Could you come and give your opinion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
NPP training
You are the most active trainer I can find, and you live in the same time zone as me, so I decided you can be my trainee for the NPP school. I'm not that experienced with NPPing so I think I could benefit. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 02:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interstatefive, could I get back to you on that in 2 weeks? My work schedule is shifting soon so I don't have a good sense of how much time I can dedicate to mentoring people on Wikipedia. If you can find a different tutor in the meantime I would encourage you to go ahead with them. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 16:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Double group (magnetochemistry)
You recently reviewed this article which, unhappily, has been the subject of a lengthy dispute. The version in my sandbox will replace Double group (magnetochemistry) (after 21 march). I hope this will be definitive. A re-review will be welcome. Petergans (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Petergans, my review was not of the article, but rather of the redirect which is at Double group. I have not looked at Double group (magnetochemistry), but if replaced it will be automatically re-added to the new page queue for review. signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
APPLICATION FOR MENTORSHIP
I am looking for a mentor. I see you're taking in adoptees. I wanna go through a course under your tutelage for a period of time that you determine for a counter vandalism course and/or a course on proper page creation. After which I will be given rollback and/or new page reviewer privileges. I'm reaching out to you because I wanna do this the proper way. It will be a honor to learn. Cheers Amaekuma (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I generally only provide NPP mentorship for editors who are already close to qualifying, not general counter-vandalism or page creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Review vs rating
Hi, thanks for reviewing the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site article. It was rated around six months ago, though - how come it wasn't just automatically marked 'reviewed' after that? 🤔 Tewdar 19:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I marked the redirect Yana RHS reviewed, not the article that it targeted. According to Special:Logs, the article itself was reviewed on November 28, 2021. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Just me not paying attention again, then. Sorry to have bothered you. 😁 Tewdar 21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Request for Review
Hello, I have a Request for review Can you please review those if notable or eligible.
–Botu Yadav (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't do reviews on request. I'll note that Millat Times has improvement tags on it that you should probably try to address, and that Sanjay Lathar has already been reviewed. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Botu Yadav:, Millat Times is a nice and reliable media source in Urdu, and I've known it to be okay. But I doubt this is a paid work and has COI associated with it. I do not find sources explicit in establishing notability as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@AafiOnMobile:, I don't know why you thought that this is paid, I had never did a paid work. Whenever i am free, I do 1-4 articles at a time. So, it's not about paid work. Millat Times had 1 Million followers which page was deleted, so i think this is also good for establishing the Notability and many sources are listed below.
—Botu Yadav (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Request for review
Hey my friend Rosguill when i search Saiee Manjrekar article on google, the article doesn't see on google, please 🙏 review it Md Adnan (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't do reviews on request. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Md Adnan, do you have any connections with the subject? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ofcourse Biroo ❤️ Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please review this article Saiee Manjrekar Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Md Adnan, please see WP:COI and disclose all your connections. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please review this article Saiee Manjrekar Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ofcourse Biroo ❤️ Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Md Adnan, do you have any connections with the subject? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Request for name change: Bear Sanctuary Belitsa
Hello Rosguill, according to the official press release, the name "dancing bears park" has been changed to "bear sanctuary belitsa". I have adopted the changes in the text. Question: How to change the title of the page? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Bears_Park_Belitsa and https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/press-releases/bear-sanctuary-belitsa-20-year-anniversary-and-a-new-name Sonjap783 (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Sanctuary_Belitsa Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Qäsee
Hi, I've reverted 3 cut/paste moves performed by User:Qäsee, two of which were made today, including one that you had reverted previously. Is it time for a clue-stick block? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks like there were more c/p moves made in April, and I haven't gone further back than that yet. In addition, most of the talk pages involved haven't been synchronized either. This looks to be a big problem, and is one I really hadn't planned on spending much time on. Is the a matter for ANI? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and blocked them pending engagement on C&P moves signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Rosguill,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 855 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but also:
Hey, I saw you granted me psuedo-AP (thanks!), but apparently the bot will re-review when I unreview it. I wanted to leave this in the queue for another reviewer to check, hence why I hit unreview. This particular one I'm fine with leaving and have watchlisted, but Is there a foolproof way to force a page into the queue? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hm, I don't think there's an existing way for you to force unpatrol on redirects if you have the pseduoperm, as the bot that operates on it is just going to keep marking it reviewed when it runs. DannyS712 would have a more definitive answer--I imagine it is technically possible to add a template flag to pages you want to skip from review but don't know how trivial or not that is to implement. signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Integrated Systems Inc. notability
You added a Notability tag and I'm looking for guidance on what to do. The page was preexisting, but it was just a redirect to *one* of the company's products which wasn't very useful. I simply added some flesh to the bones. The company's products had pre-exisiting WP pages, as did the founder and their investor. The company is also mentioned from those pages, and I converted those mentions to links to this new page. So it seems inconsistent if those are notable but the company is not. Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company of the same name, the company Integrated Systems Inc. is defunct for 12 years, it looks like names can be recycled.
-- Peter.corke (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Peter.corke, So, redirect suitability and notability are two separate questions. My concern with the article is that it does not, as written, meet WP:NCORP, as it lacks citations to multiple examples of significant secondary-source coverage. Brief reports about mergers and funding are generally not considered significant: we're looking for in-depth articles analyzing the company's products, structure, impact, etc. Federal court judgments, meanwhile, are an example of a primary source, so while they may sometimes be usable to back up a citation, it's not relevant to notability (although the existence of a high profile court case could suggest that additional secondary coverage about the case may exist). I'm not sure what you mean by
Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company
--the notability tag doesn't include a link to any other article, nor did I mention one in the edit summary. At the time that I placed the tag, I didn't have any opinion of what next steps should be: I placed it to let you know about my concerns, and to give you time to address them before I or another new page reviewer proceed to a deletion process or WP:BLAR. - Now, if the subject of the article is found to be not notable, then we would consider either deleting it or converting it to a redirect; if there are no suitable targets, then deletion is the way to go. I'll note that PSOS (real-time operating system), the previous redirect target, was created all the way back in 2002, before we had consistent processes for new article reviewing, so there's a nontrivial chance that it may not be notable either. However, it is technically possible for a company's product to be notable even if the company isn't (i.e. if the only independent, significant coverage relating to the company is focused primarily on a specific product), especially because our notability standards are higher for companies than they are about individual products. signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Re my "*different* company" comment it looks like the "Find sources" part of the tag is just doing a generic Google search for "Integrated Systems Inc." with news/newspaper/book tags, which is why all I see is hits about the new company.
- Are "trade magazines" considered suitable sources? For example [4], [5] or [6]? Peter.corke (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- It depends. Wired is generally good, although the linked article is borderline as far as the coverage's depth. The EDN piece has no byline and looks like large chunks, if not all of it, are straight out of a press release. The Military Aerospace piece looks like good coverage of Boeing McDonnell, not so much of ISI. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
NPP Question
Shouldn't we require NPPSCHOOL for editors with under 3k–5k edits before they can become autopatrolled/reviewers? I realize they're given a trial period, but who is overseeing them during the trial? I'm of the mind that proper schooling = better reviews that won't crop up later in the queue, and even if they turn out to be UPE, it reduces the chances of getting another Hatchens, or worse. Atsme 💬 📧 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Their track record would be reviewed when they re-apply for permissions. My concern with sending people to NPPSCHOOL by default is that I'm worried about inadvertently providing NPP training to black-hat editors; generally I save the NPPSCHOOL recommendation for editors who are clearly here in good faith but whose NPP-related skills aren't quite where they need to be for the permission. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to see something bizarre, see see this discussion. It's possible that I misunderstood something, or incorrectly assumed the obvious was obvious, but that's never been a major issue for me, although I'm far from being perfect. I have encountered editors with issues involving sentence comprehension and use–mention distinction. I thought that what I proposed aligned with what's already on the project page, except that I added collegial equestrian, and stock horse/western competition under equestrian sports, never imagining that it would be an issue. I was adding it to help clarify equine/equestrian topics for reviewers. How it got twisted into the opposition thinking my proposal suggested that significant coverage was not required is beyond me. In fact the section where I attempted to include it even states Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual people and horses who are involved in equestrian sport if they: so I'm thinking they somehow conflated my proposal with the proposal in the section above. It's just too bizarre. Atsme 💬 📧 01:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Posting my concerns here made me look deeper into the issue. Hopefully this edit brings the needed clarity and resolves the issue. Atsme 💬 📧 01:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Gstatic.com
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gstatic.com. 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. Palosirkka (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Creating new article (application of guidelines)
Hello, I am a (relatively) new contributor and am experiencing a challenge in getting my first new article published (even as a stub), and therefore would appreciate some feedback from the experienced editor like yourself. I have tried to learn from my very first submission (which appeared like a good candidate to me at the time) but seemingly I didn't quote enough sources and it was declined, so for my second attempt I've chosen the subject for whom I've had a good variety of quality independent sources with significant coverage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Rovenko), as I've been following their work for a while now.
The same editor who declined my very first failed article had also reviewed my new submission and left a couple of comments questioning the suitability of my submission, but not declining it. I tried to get a clarification from this editor on their Talk page to confirm the reasons behind their concerns, while providing the reference to the notability guidelines that I used as a basis for my submission, but after asking some additional questions they didn't provide any specifics at all and directed me to find help elsewhere, which I'm trying to do now.
If it's ok, it might be easier if I refer to our conversation with the editor, so that I don't have to repeat my points: Article_Review_Comment_on_Andrew_Rovenko
I'd really appreciate some guidance / constructive feedback from another experienced editor like yourself, as at the moment it doesn't seem like I'm making much progress.
Thank you Jervisbay94 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Jervisbay94
- At a glance, I think I agree with the prior reviewer: it seems like what is actually covered in citations is Rocketgirl, not Rovenko, and I don't think the achievements listed in the article add up to WP:NCREATIVE; to meet that standard, I would want to see multiple, in-depth reviews or critiques attesting to the work's lasting importance and legacy, and preferably a broader body of notable work. Given that Rovenko won an "emerging photographer" award this year, I would wager that this article is WP:TOOSOON. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosguill Thank you, I really appreciate your response and clarification, as it really helps me understand better the perspective from which the new articles are assessed. I only wish that these considerations were included into the guidelines for WP:NCREATIVE, as the particular criteria that I thought applies to my subject specifies that the work has to be significant or well known and a subject of multiple independent periodical articles, both of which seemed to relevant to me in this case (and there's a separate criteria related to the importance of the author, but it doesn't seem like they need to apply simultaneously)
- I did find additional international media coverage of this work (including non-English language media). If I wanted to include this coverage into the article for future assessments but not use them for citations, what would be the best section to include these sources?
- Thanks again for your very kind response! Jervisbay94 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Ars arcana Rfd close
Hi there, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_27#Ars_arcana as delete. The deletion summary does not link to the discussion, only to the general Rfd page. Since you mention the discussion in your close for attribution reasons, I think it's worth trying going back to link directly to the discussion. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, that's an unfortunate oversight of the script. I've addressed it just now. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Remove me from Redirect autopatrol list
Hi Rosguill, you were the person who put me on the Redirect autopatrol list, could you remove me from there? I am now autopatrolled and it doesn't make sense anymore. Thank you very much and sorry for the inconvenience, I have made the request here. Dandilero (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Sockpuppet master using multiple IP accounts
Hi Rosguill, I have found IP users linked to one sockpuppet master who you have previously banned. [7] He's back now using different IP users to restore his old revisions that I've reverted months back. [8] [9] Ayaltimo (talk) 06:08, 08 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see enough evidence to justify blocking them: at Barakat ibn Umar Din, they did restore content added by Zemenfes, but it's not clear that the two IPs are connected, and the second IP could plausibly have come across the prior reverted change and reacted to it, rather than having colluded with Zemenfes. The change at Mansur ad-Din of Adal is similar, but not identical to Zemenfes's edits, and reviewing the rest of their editing history I don't see any dead-ringers other than a shared interested in East African topics. Given that Zemenfes was blocked primarily for edit warring and inappropriate edit summaries, I'm disinclined to take action unless more of the same occurs again. signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- 2601:280:CB02:1C79:146E:722B:2C2B:5CC7 you're talking about here is part of the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range currently suspected in ZemenfesKidus' SPI. I looked into this for a few hours, and found much evidence, which I've filed there.
- @Ayaltimo: perhaps in the future, it would be better not to revert with "IP vand rv" as edsum, as you did here and here. First of all, this is not vandalism (please read WP:NOTVANDALISM), and second, as long as a user has not been proven to be a sockpuppet, you should not revert solely on that basis. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Apaugasma: I understand. I was too busy to build a strong case against ZemenfesKidus. I saw the SPI but there has been no response from there so I thought I could come here and show IP users restoring old reversions belonging to the sock master. I've been encountering the same problems right here. [10] They share a similar IP range and launch attacks on multiple pages with many being vandalized so that's why I continued with "IP vand RV" when he removed sourced content [11]. Either way, thank you for building a strong case. They've been quite disruptive. Ayaltimo (talk) 16:28, 09 June 2022 (UTC)
If you're interested
Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#Saadat_Kadyrova; I think there is a pattern here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see that discussion is getting heated, but it seems like the basic arguments made regarding Kadyrova were defensible, at least until you were able to provide additional secondary sources covering Kadyrova's comments. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just not aware of a constructive way to approach someone who keeps repeating the same things over and over again. I know we should keep our cool, but I also have my limits and I'm at a breaking point. Perhaps I should stop engaging with this user if they're not planning to change their approach. There should be a limit of someone WP:CRUSHing their way on talk discussions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you've identified the correct solution there: once you've made your point, take a step back and proceed to 3O, DRN or an RfC if need be. signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Rosguill, sorry to bother you, but I had some unexpected difficulties with this user again that I think needs an admin's attention;
- 1) I did some edits in Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh today. After a couple of hours of my editing, Abrvagl who hardly edited for almost a week, followed up with this addition among others. No matter how you look at it, the source cited in that edit uses extremely partisan language [12], this doesn't seem to be an improvement. Keep in mind Abrvagl never edited on that article or explained how they found it or happen to be continuing after my edits, just like couple of weeks ago when they "jumped" into a random discussion with me and another user. If these aren't WP:HOUNDING which disrupt my experience as an editor, I don't know what else is.
- 2) I reverted their edit in Lachin today, which omitted details from the source [13]. I showed them the full quote on talk as well Talk:Lachin#An_Armenian_sergeant (I have the source), and suggested that we either attribute all of it to the source or none of it, since that same source is cited in the article for other info as well which doesn't seem to bother Abrvagl, see Lachin#First_Nagorno-Karabakh_War (29th citation). In response, they misquoted me citing a single phrase out of my sentence, and basically told me that "because" isn't in the source, but somehow their omitted "rephrasing" is better than the original one? The quote is very clear btw and why in sergeant's words (paraphrased and attributed as such on the article) the looting was done, and the original sentence didn't need any omission by Abrvagl. I already asked them to stop quoting me out of context just like they did in AE, this seems to be another example of that, which raises WP:CIR issues.
- 3) Finally, they repeated the same thing in the above 2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling, asking (again) to reinstate their own edit (which basically means removing Kadyrova) despite not launching the RfC yet or having any consensus, and not agreeing to the simple changes proposed on talk either.
- I'm having a very unpleasant and difficult time of editing because of this user; their hounding, their repeated WP:CIR, their misunderstanding (?) of what paraphrasing means and basic English, and so on. Do I really need to open another AE for this? Courtesy pinging Thryduulf. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni, I think filing an AE case is the most appropriate way forward--while at a glance the allegations you raise here do seem concerning to me, I'd prefer to evaluate them together with responses from Abrvagl. For the record, I would be willing to act without an AE report if there was something blatantly against the letter of prior warnings or core policies, but the concerns enumerated here don't seem to rise to that level. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you've identified the correct solution there: once you've made your point, take a step back and proceed to 3O, DRN or an RfC if need be. signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just not aware of a constructive way to approach someone who keeps repeating the same things over and over again. I know we should keep our cool, but I also have my limits and I'm at a breaking point. Perhaps I should stop engaging with this user if they're not planning to change their approach. There should be a limit of someone WP:CRUSHing their way on talk discussions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Nicolai L. Volodos
Dear Rosguill, Many thanks for your partitipation in improving of created by us article Nicolai L. Volodos. Following your recommendation, some references have been added. In case you consider that improvement enough to remove your tag, please do it.
Vit713828 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit713828 (talk • contribs)
- Vit713828, thanks for continuing to work on the article, but looking at it again it looks like there are still many paragraphs with no citations at all that at a minimum could use a footnote for an existing source. signed, Rosguill talk 15:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Rosguill,
- I am writing to you on behalf of our International team developing this article (Nicolai L Volodos).
- First and foremost, thank you for your attention to our work.
- But, before to proceed further, I would like to ask you to read this material (https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(22)00142-3/fulltext#relatedArticles. ) for better understanding of the person we are talking about.
- Looking into the history of this article, you may see that we started our work on 22 May 2020, and have been continuing it until very recently, keeping the article in form of a draft. Such approach has allowed us to prevent any unwanted interferenceі in our work.
- Now, why?
- From the text you can see that Professor NL Volodos lived and worked in Ukraine. Mostly all materials, published by him and about him, are in Russian or Ukrainian. So, in those materials, already listed in the References, Russian speaking people can find all the dada required to consider them as proves for all the facts mentioned in this Wiki article.
- Members of our informal group are Internationally recognized experts in the field of vascular and endovascular surgery from Western Europe and the States, and former Professor Volodos’ colleagues, including his son dr. Sergiy Volodos. We all knew Professor Volodos personally, many of us worked with him for many years.
- Currently, we work hard on translation of the works published by Professor N Volodos and his colleagues in Russian into good English. So, later we will be able to add them to the References. But, this process is very complicated. We have to pay attention to the copyrights and that sort of possible issues, etc.
- After all, this is our plan for your consideration. First possible option is to remove all your tags from the page (so, they will not encourage some ignorants to make changes to the article for the purpose just to take part in the process) and prevent the material (in case that is in your power) from further editings for the period required for preparation of the mentioned works in English, which will be added to the References in due course. Such approach can help us to protect the article from incompetent editions we are worried about. The second possible option is to hide (or even remove the article from the English Wiki), so, we will be able to improve it further in the less aggressive environment. In the second case, no one will be able to see that information about Professor N Volodos in English. The second is not the best option, because some lecturers and Professors are going to refer to this page during their lectures for medical and post-graduate students.
- Thank you, and count on your understanding and informal approach to the problem.
- Vit713828 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, three issues:
- I don't see what any of what you just wrote has to do with including inline citations. If the existing Russian references support all of the content in the article, simply create additional footnotes pointing to the existing references so that each paragraph and exceptional claim is verifiable.
- Wikipedia has a strict rule against sharing accounts. If you are working on this or other articles as a team, please create a separate account for each individual participating.
- We also have strict conflict of interest policies. If you are all former colleagues of Volodos, that comprises a conflict of interest, and you should a) disclose it on your user page b) disclose it on the talk page of any article you edit where it is relevant c) avoid editing relevant articles directly, in favor of submitting edit requests. signed, Rosguill talk 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed and clear explanations! Now it seems to me that it would be better to remove our article for a while for deep re-editing, taking into account your recommendations. Hope that its next appearance will be much more successful.
- Vit713828 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could you, please, help me change the status of the article back to a draft? I can't do it. Thank you!
- Vit713828 (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- At this point I think that draftifying is unnecessary, as my prior searches indicate that Volodos meets our notability guidelines, which means that we should have an article on him, and it's fine to fix its last few problems while it's in mainspace. If you want to notify editors and readers that the article is being actively worked on, you can use the templates {{under construction}} and {{in use}}. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can I count on your further practical help in improving this article? If so, please, add template «in use» to the article (I am not sure that I can do it correctly). It would be very helpful, if you could remove your notifications about «multiple issues» of this article from the page, at least for certain period, because they encourage visitors to take part in editing (I do not wish to have the page as a battlefield at this point). Will be in touch with you during further work on the article.
- Thank you,
- Vit713828 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- To add the in-use tag, just put {{in use}} at the top of the page (if you're looking at this in code, ignore the nowiki tags, they just prevent the template from popping up on this page. I'm not going to remove the current templates, as they actually add the article to a maintenance queue that can bring in editors to improve the page, and they notify readers of ongoing issues with the page. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- At this point I think that draftifying is unnecessary, as my prior searches indicate that Volodos meets our notability guidelines, which means that we should have an article on him, and it's fine to fix its last few problems while it's in mainspace. If you want to notify editors and readers that the article is being actively worked on, you can use the templates {{under construction}} and {{in use}}. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- So, three issues:
Hello. I cordially ask you to copy in my Sandbox the deleted article on the energy researcher Toufik Boushaki, now within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was deleted on May 20, 2021 at 10:39, in order to improve it. Cordially. --Authentise (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is now at User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect autopatrol
Hi Rosguill. Since the accidental damage of my laptop on 14 May, I'm not in a position to access my main account, and the technician alongside the LCD is likely [not sure] to come after 8 July, according to the customer care executive of the Dell. It is getting delayed due to lockdown in China. I contribute to very little extent through RMT and AfC etc on my mobile account. The moving process is all about redirects in between, and they often go un-patrolled. Please grant my account the psuedo-right so that the redirect are by-default marked as patrolled. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Gabe Klinger Article Review
Hey Rosguill, I saw you reviewed my page for Gabe Klinger. Someone else took it down because they felt it lacked notability. I was wondering if you think I should revert the page back to what it was or do you also think this is a subject that lacks notability? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob1026 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed the redirect, not the article, so no opinion on the pre-existing article's notability as I have not looked at it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Rob1026, I skimmed through the pre-existing article and I agree that there's no indication of independent notability. Neither do the sources help the subject pass WP:GNG nor are there significant and multiple roles which would help the subject qualify WP:NFILMMAKER. So, please desist and don't revert but try to work on issues that have been highlighted to you. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Question
Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. May I please ask your senior opinion, in view of your experience of peaceful dispute resolution in AA topics? Here, I started a discussion about a revert that I felt was not justified. Not so much the content of the revert, but the method of operation itself, which I feel i(knowing the user well) is being overused. I admit I sounded more irritated then an average user would be in such average situation. However, what followed afterwards puzzled me very much - the intervention by the mentor felt anything but mediation or dispute resolution attempt to me. I felt attacked and threatened, and was left bewildered about the whole policy vs guidelines vs essay difference. Do you think it was a right step to ask an emotionally involved mentor to intervene instead of providing explanation and using neutral dispute resolution tools? And what is the right thing to do with the intimidating response from the mentor? Does it comply with Wikipedia code of conduct? Thanks. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, mentoring on Wikipedia is rather informal, and someone mentoring another editor isn't obligated to intervene as a mediator or uninvolved party. They did get more testy with you than would have been ideal, but I think they're right on the underlying matter: Golden doesn't appear to have done anything wrong by reverting your change, and your responses on the talk page could be read as wikilawyering as well as inaccurate advice. If MJL had showed up to vote stack on the content question, that would be a canvassing issue, but they limited their response to addressing misconceptions about policies and guidelines around edit warring, so I'm not really seeing a sanctionable issue here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to explain things in a plain language, Rosguill, much appreciated! Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)