Hi. You are mistaken. Kind Regards. [[User:BobVillars|BobVillars]] ([[User talk:BobVillars|talk]]) 00:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You are mistaken. Kind Regards. [[User:BobVillars|BobVillars]] ([[User talk:BobVillars|talk]]) 00:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
== Nazran Airport ==
Hello @[[User:Rosguill|Rosguill]]! Is there a way to make a request to delete not only the enWiki page but also the faWiki and tgWiki pages of this article? No airport exists in Nazran. Best regards, [[User:WikiEditor1234567123|<b style="font-style:italic;font-family:Georgia,Times New Roman,serif;color:#87b4a7">''WikiEditor''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiEditor1234567123|<b style="color:#87b4a7">123…</b>]]</sup> 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Revisionasof20:40,18February2024
This user is a polyglot and likes languages a bit too much for their own good. They're happy to try to speak to you here in Spanish, German, French, Portuguese, Italian, Hebrew, Yiddish, or Russian, although they may need to switch back to English depending on the subject matter. For a full list of proficiencies, see their User page.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Merry Christmas, Rosguill! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demanding a warning in response to Any reasonable third party would consider your reverts as irresponsible and borderline harassment of a new editor. halfway down a rabbit hole thread in an AN report is silly. The quoted text doesn't particularly help DMH43's case, but it is Kafkaesque to demand a sanction in response to it. signed, Rosguilltalk23:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a demand but a proposal for a warning. Really, you think that's ok to call it a demand? I thought better of you. This whole event has been extremely eye-opening. Andre🚐23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demand, proposal, I don't think that makes a major difference in this context. You're hounding a new editor, that's the issue. Mild hounding, before you take issue to that wording as well. signed, Rosguilltalk23:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a huge difference, I'm very offended and upset by your comment, coming from a long-time admin, and it's quite beyond the pale to double down on it. I object strenuously that I am hounding that editor. All I did was propose that he be warned for incivility and for gaming the system. That is within a reasonable range of what can be said on an AN thread, which I remind you, that editor himself started as an appeal. I find your comments extremely troubling. Andre🚐23:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intent was not to hurt you, but it should serve as an attitude readjustment. In the absence of actual diffs that demonstrate NOTHERE behavior, a new editor's sanction appeal is not the appropriate time to nitpick their tone (barring you know, actual slurs and over the top ad hominem). signed, Rosguilltalk23:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little AGF would go a long way here. Keep in mind, they're a new editor who has stepped feet first into historical Byzantium which is currently at war with dozens of sockpuppeteers. Without the context of why this is being treated as such a big deal I'm sure it looks much different. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am AGF; did I accuse the user of being a sockpuppet or a POVwarrior? I asked the user to read gaming the system and RGW. Instead they are doubling and tripling down on their problematic behavior and showing lack of clue or understanding why it's an issue. They also accused Dovidroth of harassment - which is incivil, inappropriate, and unsupported here. Other users are piling on saying that Dovidroth should be sanctioned which is absolutely ridiculous and problematic. I stand by my comments, and I continue to be extremely troubled by Rosguill putting their finger on the scale in a way that is deeply hurtful and inappropriate, and which they have shown no self-reflection towards. It is not appropriate whatsoever to characterize my comments as a hyperbolic demand or to attempt to turn this around to sanction me or Dovidroth. Quite inappropriate indeed. As I said, this whole event, the Byzantium as SFR says, has really opened my eyes on a lot of things and not in a good way at all. Andre🚐23:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to action the request at the moment, but I've gone ahead and de-archived the discussion and tagged it so that it will not be re-archived before a formal closure. signed, Rosguilltalk15:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you removed my autopatrolled and declined my AFD request in this edit. [3]
Please in good faith reconsider your position and see it from my POV.
I recalled a specific day that I wished to apply for NPP again because of my denial for not doing enough AFD's, so after doing some, I applied for it again without the intention to game the system whatsoever. I also continued to do AFD's after it as well.
What you said about casting multiple delete votes was because of my honest opinion on these votes, including to delete articles that failed common requirements such as WP:GNG.
I believe the removal of such permissions (specifically autopatrolled), without a warning that something like this was not permissible to do per WP:GAME may have not been the correct decision, as it says to assume in good faith.
"A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is likely that editor is gaming the system in bad faith."
There also seems to be nothing regarding on "gaming the system" for AFD's, especially towards NPP, so I am asking you to reconsider your decision, thanks for reading. Noorullah (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noorullah21, I understand your frustration, but ultimately I have to consider this from the perspective of protecting the broader Wikipedia project. When it comes to advanced permissions like autopatrol or new page reviewer, it is not enough for me to simply AGF and back off when there is a plausible cause for concern.
Further, the intent in originally recommending that you participate more in AfD the first time around was that you build up a track record of participation that can be evaluated. Jumping into a half dozen discussions right before requesting the permission doesn't do that: as admins considering permissions applications, we wanted to see you participate over an extended period of time so that we could also see the discussions come to a conclusion, and to see your evaluations of sources in a variety of contexts including when editors make counter-arguments against them. Even setting aside the gameing concerns, quickly leaving several comments the same day that you apply for the permission doesn't do that, and essentially leaves the reviewing admin in the same position as the first time around, with insufficient data to assess your relevant skills.
Now, again, I can see how this could have all been a good faith misunderstanding, and for that reason I ask that you don't take these decisions personally. With full AGF-goggles on, you simply mistook what we were looking for and thus unintentionally prepared your edits in the wrong way. But given that these are advanced permissions with high potential for abuse, there needs to be a high bar for receiving the permissions. To that end, if you spend the next three months engaging in the kind of thoughtful, slow participation in AfD that we're actually looking for, I think you will likely receive the permission then. signed, Rosguilltalk14:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill I see, I apologize for anything that might've caused confusion and definitely on my part for what happened.
No, I stand by my decision, for the reasons already explained. It is unfortunately all too easy for someone to make good contributions only long enough to avoid scrutiny. Further, having the permission confers no special advantage to you (unless you're trying to skirt scrutiny), so there's really no reason to request it. signed, Rosguilltalk21:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there is no formal sanction against you seeking the reinstatement of permissions, I personally do not recommend seeking it, as that is going to look like WP:Hat collecting/gaming behavior in itself and it confers no actual benefit to you. signed, Rosguilltalk22:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiEditor1234567123, no, CC 4.0 means that you can upload images posted by someone else under CC 4.0 as long as you attribute them. Maybe the following example will clear it up:
If someone publishes their original work Foo without invoking CC4.0, it cannot be reused in any context without their express permission.
If someone publishes their original work Foo invoking CC4.0, it can be used in any context as long as you give attribution to the original and do not attempt to impose restrictions on who can then share the original work.
Hi Rosguill, thank you for your work reviewing redirects and articles. I just wanted to point out that the Wikipedia community decided to disallow draftification of old articles (i.e., articles older than 90 days). I'm quoting the guideline WP:ATD-IOlder articles—as a rule of thumb, those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. So, could you please revert the moves that are against this consensus and bring them to WP:AfD (so that it is not seen as soft deletions). I've identified some of them that trigerred 1076 filter (6 months or older). There might be more because rule is 3 months or older while filter only captures 6 months or older. You may check your move log please.
As the guideline says, that's a rule of thumb. In most of these cases we're talking about articles that made it to the back of the NPP queue without anyone signing off on them, and where there are fairly apparent COI concerns--I stand by my decision to draftify them pending clarification of the editors' COI status. In the case of Draft:Athar Amin Zargar, that was primarily, possibly exclusively, edited by a sockpuppet that engaged in widespread abuse and UPE; draftification there was an anti-UPE measure. signed, Rosguilltalk01:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor prodded 125 kilometer, and the prod was removed. I was just about to check for Russian language sources as that was called out by the de-prodder, but I see that you found that 125 kilometer was duplicative. I think the redirect is a good move. Bruxton (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in Russian I find stations in Sverdlovsk and Irkutsk that appear equally prominent (i.e.: only in timetables and databases, less than notable) to the Vitebsk station that the article was written about. There also appear to be at least two stations in Ukraine by the same name. signed, Rosguilltalk18:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a rather non-descript rail stop. Sigh, so much to do but thanks for all you do. I was working on a Russian reltated article about a Hanging Stone. And I have to do quite a bit of online translating. Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just seeing this now. In general I think going to SPI is the right move, as even if the behavior is obvious enough for me to block on that basis, a CU will be able to potentially link it to a longer-term sockmaster. signed, Rosguilltalk13:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Sudipto Sen
You mentioned that I may have COI with the subject, But I wanna ask how it is possible to have contact with such big director. This isn't first time I facing this issue, tired of giving clarification on COI. How a ordinary guy get in touch with such people. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice of topics and patterns of editing thus far are consistent with that of an undisclosed paid editor. You have not adequately justified how you have come to choose the various topics you write about in response to prior COI inquiries. signed, Rosguilltalk19:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damnnn again the same COI thing, if my work seems like Paid editor than can you guide me how to choose topics :) I'll surely follow that. As per my recent discussion with an admin, I come to know about Paid contribution tag, I'll use that if I will do any Paid work or COI thing in future. But all of sudden you take action on this page with the same COI thing, @RosguilliVickyChoudhary (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would recommend focusing on subjects that are historical, or which otherwise have no possible promotional motive. Biographies of still-active entertainment industry professionals are the most WP:UPE-prone topic, and you will raise people's suspicions if that is the focus of your editing (especially if your subjects of choice are not clear-cut cases for notability). signed, Rosguilltalk14:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll choose topics of my interest, how can I work on thing I don't have any knowledge? I'll try to focus more on historical subject as of now. But all my work is not fully based on entertainment inudstry, and that guy Sudipto sen is seems notable as He directed many films some of are well known too and also he has few upcoming project. Kindly re look into that page, rest choice is yours as you have more knowledge about Wiki. <3iVickyChoudhary (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Rosguill! You wrote "Ukrainian consul generals in the US are not heads of mission; the head of mission is Ambassador Oksana Markarova" - can you please back up this assertion? Intuitively, a consulate is a mission, and Markarova - being 3 timezones away - isn't its head. Of course, this intuition may be wrong, but we need some evidence or rationale. Thank you Qq8 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qq8, head of mission typically means the head of the entire diplomatic mission, i.e. the top dedicated representative from Country A to Country B. For foreign relations where an ambassador is appointed, that top representative is the ambassador. In situations where there aren't full bilateral relations the top official may be a consul general (e.g. Taiwan–United States relations), but that is not the case for US-Ukraine, which have full ambassadors appointed bilaterally. It's also worth noting that WP:DIPLOMAT only has essay status, and thus is not an ironclad argument for keeping an article that otherwise falls short of GNG (although in my experience, ambassadors are routinely kept per that essay without any issue) signed, Rosguilltalk17:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, @Rosguill. I don't know if the Kushneruk article falls short of GNG (it has refs about Kushneruk and his official work). But that's a different issue, ofc. Qq8 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the page's history, the article was created by a sockpuppet evading a block, and their contributions are thus not welcome on Wikipedia. The article further appears to be a WP:CFORK of the current target, Indo people, so any good-faith recreation of the article would also need to explain why a separate article is warranted. signed, Rosguilltalk14:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under good-faith, I'm considering recreating the article under the article creation clause for a proper review. I believe it could be a valuable addition, given its relevance. I would ask permission first before I could go forward. What are your thoughts on this, and do you have any advice or insights?
Kaliper1, you can go ahead, but my two suggestions would be:
While you may want to use some sources cited in the pre-existing revision, I would recommend starting with new prose written from scratch rather than restoring any of the sock's text.
Before you begin in earnest, make sure that high-quality sources actually make a distinction between Indo people and Dutch-Indonesians; the current framing of the articles suggests that while Indo can technically refer to other European-Indonesian groups, in practice it refers primarily to Dutch-Indonesians. If that framing is accurate with reference to high quality sources and Indo predominantly refers to people of partial Dutch descent, creating a separate article is likely not warranted.
@Rosguill, I hope you're doing well. I saw you protect and redirect the page Solanki (Gurjar clan). Against IP disruption/vandalism, I would like to get your permission to restore this page to the last version when I move the page from the inaccurate title Solankis to the accurate title Solanki (Gurjar clan), thinking that Solankis is more close to the Disambiguation page Solanki. and I did this because the subject was well sourced in accordance with WP:RS and WP:GNG. I'd like to expand and improve this page further, so if you will allow me, I'll restore it with your permission, but if you think I don't have the permission or it is against Wikipedia's guidelines, do let me know so I'll not insist.Kokaabitalk16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer, But how are you so sure that this should be related to any sock? We can check through Global Contributions or any related platform to confirm the facts. And I was the one who moved page SolankistoSolanki (Gurjars clan) and I did not take any further edits there, even though I had not made any edits there. I saw this page after a few days, but I don't understand if we don't have proof that this was actually a LTA or not, just as we thought.? It can be. I guess Rosguill can fix this matter. Kokaabitalk17:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, as not make any edits on the page except a move yet and yes I read
Chariotrider555 concern that page was poorly sourced but that's not the fact I guess overall there were reliable sources one of them might not be reliable but without mentioning such source hard to understand and
DreamRimmer raised a concern that content might be posted by IP or by sock but he/she not mentioned the place were we could understand where it's a fact or not and I don't know how last concern can be addressed it's up to you.Kokaabitalk17:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, I am leaving it to you as I addressed all the issues and I was the one who moved the page a week ago, and I guess DreamRimmer is not quite right here because all the links about random WP:SPI did not prove that such an IP that posted content on Solankis page was actually a sock or related to any sock according to the provided SPI links, but it's up to you whether you want to delete the page moved from Solankis to Solanki (Gurjar clan) or you want to use any trick to find out what the fact was thank you.Kokaabitalk17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DreamRimmer, I'm not sure I see the need to delete the page, as there does appear to be some relevant information at Chaulukya dynasty where it currently redirects. That having been said, to Kokaabi's points there are broad, valid concerns of WP:SYNTH and unreliable sources in the prior revisions of the page, in addition to the underlying context of pervasive sockpuppetry. If you believe that there is encyclopedic information to write on this topic, I would encourage you to start an article in draft space. signed, Rosguilltalk17:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, This is my first ever talk with any user or editor here, and I always try to maintain distance from edit wars, etc. Before doing anything, I asked your permission. Even here, I respect DreamRidersl's concern, but he has not yet succeeded in proving or explaining whether such an IP was genuinely linked to any sock or not, but in any WP:SPI provided links, such a fact has not been proved, so I would request that you, if you have any spare time, please look into this case and take your decision. I trust you, whatever you think is right would be acceptable for me. Kokaabitalk17:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kokaabi, I've already looked into it and stand by what I've already said. The fact that there has been widespread sockpuppetry relating to "Gujjar clan" articles being created with very weak sourcing is not up for debate, I've seen plenty of examples first hand without even needing to look through the examples DreamRimmer has noted here. If you want to add content in relation to these topics, you should scrutinize every source and claim in keeping with WP:ARBIPA and WP:GSCASTE. signed, Rosguilltalk17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, I don't know why DreamRimmer is quite possessive for Rajput or related topics. If I am wrong, sorry in advance, but I want to say that on the Solanki (clan) page, it is said that the Solanki clan is found in more than ten Indian communities. Even on the Rajput page, it is clearly mentioned that the Rajputs are descendants of Gurjars, Jats, Tribals, Shudras, Meena, and Ahir/Yadas. When in the Chaulukya dynasty page in the origin section, it is mentioned that Chaulukya and Solanki were Gurjars. How can DreamRimmer not accept the fact that many communities have the same clan names as Rajput? Even on the Solanki (clan) page, it is clearly mentioned that this clan is found in many communities. Why can Gurjar not have Solanki (Gurjar clan) on a separate page when Solanki (Mer clan) is also another community that has the same clan name.?Kokaabitalk17:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See last reply. You should expect sourcing in this topic area to be held to a very high standard, and are welcome to contribute so long as you can maintain that standard of quality. signed, Rosguilltalk17:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, alright, so now I should propose the transfer of Solankis to Solanki (Gurjar clan). Should I start with the draft, or should I write a separate article?. In addition, I will obey the policies of WP:ARBIPA and WP:GSCASTE and thank you very much for giving us a nice solution. Kokaabitalk18:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have a deep interest in all pages related to GSCASTE and Indian history. Indian history was my chosen subject. Also I've actively participated in several SPI reports addressing Gurjar POV pushers. Through this involvement, I've gained a close understanding of the cases. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer, I appreciate your hard work and dedication throughout the past three years that you have been actively serving here. As a novice, I'm always eager to learn from veteran editors here.Kokaabitalk18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Fantastic job spotting that LTA again! I was also on the lookout for clues, but you beat me to it. Thanks a bunch!
An article should not be created unless there is enough coverage in independent WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Episode reviews in entertainment magazines are the most common form of RS for television episodes. signed, Rosguilltalk19:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hello @Rosguill! I have a question: there's a free image of an Ingush writer Idris Bazorkin in the 1928-29 when he was young but can a non-free image under fair use be added into the article to depict what he looked like when he was old? WikiEditor123…20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anointed One (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The post of governor has been superseded. While it is true the article is not in great shape, I think it is notable and could be improved. There is plenty of coverage. I just haven't got the time to update it. Have a great day. Bedivere (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight
There's some activity from an account which is removing sources from the article Mousiotitsa without any explanation or arguments and is personalizing the discussion because they think other editors are admins. I thought that an actual admin might need to step in User talk:DHyperion#January 2024 as they don't seem to realize that they can't just remove content based on their own personal views.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe Simon and Harlow16!
I noticed early this morning that you removed the Gabe Simon page for a multitude of reasons (rightfully so) and left a COI warning on Harlow16!'s page (I don't want to ping him). However, he has repeatedly reverted bot and human edits and keeps bringing the page back, removing maintenance tags, and ignoring warnings from you and bots. I am not an admin, and not even sure how this process works, but it is not hard for me to notice that this user's activity is problematic. Akyyka (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your blocks and deletions. You're quick. Have a great rest of your day
If the issue is only COI without any other problematic editing behavior, raise the issue at WP:COIN if you are not able to resolve the issue after leaving a relevant template.
Thank you. Not sure if you've checked my edit history, but most of my contributions are surrounding music artists and New England history/infrastructure. I only found this user because of a random edit to Noah Kahan where s/he linked to Gabe Simon, and immediately noticed red flags. In the past, I've submitted protection requests for Zach Bryan following vandalism from IP editors surrounding his arrest, but I was unaware of the procedure for dealing with autoconfirmed editors. Thank you for the resources.
I have received your message you left for me on your talk page. I am not directly or indirectly compensated for the edits made on Barbara Capponi page. I am just translating the information left on the Italian wikipedia page on her to the English version with appropriate references and sources. Soafy234 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for responding here again but I have a left a response to your question on my talk page incase you didn't receive that notification on your end. Soafy234 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rosguill, thanks for reporting Sudhansu7. As for not noticing their legal threat, perhaps you were too fascinated by the waist and buttocks stuff to take note of anything else? It made me blink all right. Bishonen | tålk20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Haha, to be honest, I didn't realize that Google Translate could handle latinized Hindi and ignored it beyond noting it as another potential sign of CIR. signed, Rosguilltalk20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NY International FC
Dunno why I wasn't alerted to your "notability" header. I do not want to get into an edit war and would love to discuss it here. NY International FC has been mentioned by reliable sources, both for on the field performances and unfortunate tragedies. It was named in an international magazine (World Soccer Magazine, June 2023 issue - I'd love your help sourcing that and should be able to show you the article). Its not perfect but I don't see why that's worth removing/redirecting the entire page. It plays in a historic league and has enough of a history that it merits being categorized. Also, there's Division 9 teams in England with less sources (I know that's WP:OTHERSTUFF but you need to understand how silly it is). Also, we can move this to the page's TALK page if that's better for record keeping. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ColeTrain4EVER, yes let's discuss. I think here is fine, since the paths forward from here are either a) we agree and implement the outcome b) we disagree, in which case it would be appropriate for you to revert my blanking of the page and discussion would proceed at AfD.
World Soccer - paywalled, could be good but I can't access it
SBNation/OnceAMetro 1 - not entirely sure what to make of this source. The coverage is decent, but the branding on the page suggests a community website rather than a professional publication, and both the Staff link and the profile for the article's author lack additional information.
SBNation/OnceAMetro 2 - similar situation as the first SBNation article, and it's the same author, which raises concerns that the author is affiliated with the club.
QNS - ok coverage (more about Giri than the team, but it does mention the team in some detail), but the source looks like a community bulletin board more than a professional publication: no masthead, no about us, but there are submission forms.
Stevenson - local school blog with minimal coverage of the team
So, all told, it comes down to whether Mike Battista at SBNation/OnceAMetro is a reliable source. The most recent RSN discussion I found has a small consensus that it should be used only on a case by case basis, when the specific author is a recognized professional journalist or for completely uncontroversial details like match reports. My sense is that this bar isn't met here. signed, Rosguilltalk15:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill So first off, I have a copy of the World Soccer article (PDF). What would the best way to show that to you be (website or service where I can put it up for you to review)? I'm hoping to follow WP:Offline sources with this, especially with it being paywalled. But if you don't mind assuming good faith I would love to show it to you and you could help me cite it. I've never cited offline stuff before and want to do it correctly.
As for Mike Battista, if we count him as a source it looks like he's written for U.S. Soccer itself. See the bottom where it says "regular contributor to TheCup.us, Once A Metro, & New York Sports Nation". Though a recent article says he writes for Hudson River Blue now. Both of which are soccer websites for the New York area. If it comes down to SB Nation/Once A Metro being reliable, one of his articles there won a national award from United Soccer Coaches. Would USC being reputable and awarding Once A Metro give the website or author more credence? That makes sense on paper to me. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the offline source, I'm ok with accepting that on good faith. I'm not sure I find the examples bolstering Battista's case to be particularly strong, unfortunately. I'd rather see recognition from a journalistic body than a US Soccer body, as the latter isn't really independent. The media award seems to be an open-submission contest hosted by a coaches' organization rather than a professional award for excellence in the field, and being a "regular contributor" doesn't sound like an actual staff journalist position. Can you find any WP:USEBYOTHERS for Battista's work? signed, Rosguilltalk17:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand WP:USEBYOTHERS so apologies if I'm off base here. I'm not finding anything about them being staffed anywhere. Just articles at other websites for various different levels of soccer. Though there is one at Protagonist Soccer (since that popped up before). But it calls him a guest contributor. Though at the very least I think that would eliminate the concerns that they are affiliated with the club? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By USEBYOTHERS, I mean examples of established RS (e.g. ESPN, Sports Illustrated prior to the current meltdown, or any reputable non-sports newspaper) citing Battista's work in another publication. signed, Rosguilltalk18:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not so sure. It feels like they consistently write for Hudson River Blue, which used to be SB Nation but is independent now. But in terms of being mentioned by established RS I'm struggling. Is that a deal breaker then? It's frustrating since it feels like they're established enough as a "soccer source". Even if U.S. Soccer isn't independent, soccer itself isn't covered extensively in the United States like it is in Europe. So I think it should be worth something in terms of validity.
Look, I don't think every soccer team needs a Wikipedia page. I don't think every Cosmopolitan Soccer League team needs one. But NYIFC feels like its a "notable" lower division soccer team in the United States. But because its lower division, and not playing in a national league, the types of sources it gets are lower. They won't get a NY Times article. But they do get covered by soccer media in New York. Combined with Giri's murder, the former Bundesliga player on their roster, and World Soccer mentioning them in an article about NYC soccer (and the team's tenable connection to the NY Cosmos fanbase) it feels like its low grade notable (but still notable). ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a gray area, and for that reason, if you were to restore the article I would probably leave it to someone else to review. However, if you want a more definitive opinion on the source's reliability, I think it would be appropriate to open a thread at WP:RSN and ask whether Mike Battista writing at SBNation is sufficiently to contribute towards establishing notability for a soccer team and other sports journalism claims. signed, Rosguilltalk20:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill wouldn't me restoring it after you reviewed it be a faux pas? Like, as much as I disagree with you I'm seeing a lot of praise for your work on this page. Plus your user page itself shows you know what you're talking about haha. I'll consider it though.
In the meantime, can I ask you two things:
1: What's the best way to cite the World Soccer article? Just add the info to the "Cite News" template? Like I said, never cited non-web material before.
2: Let's say NYIFC isn't ready right now. If they, say, enter U.S. Open Cup qualifying - that would be enough right? Since previous discussions have ruled participation in a national knockout tournament is basis for GNG.
ColeTrain4EVER We do have {{Cite magazine}}, which you can find in the Insert --> Template menu instead of the usual citation menu.
I'm not familiar with a standard that participation in a knockout tournament establishes notability. Back when WP:FPL was an active guideline, there was a standard that participation in a fully-professional league established notability for players, and in practice, teams were presumed notable in this situation as well. That might be what you're thinking of? signed, Rosguilltalk20:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Rosguill, I have your talk page on my watchlist for some reason and saw the FC and got curious what this was from the header. I looked at the page before the redirect including analyzing the sources and I would send it to AfD for not passing GNG if restored. Not sure about World Soccer but apart from that I don't see a source that either sufficiently covers the team or is clearly reliable in the article. SportingFlyerT·C20:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks @Rosguill. BTW, I was thinking of WP:FOOTYN which says "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national tier(s) of the league structure in countries where no cup exists or in the countries whose national cup does not include all teams who play in the national league(s)) generally meet WP:GNG criteria". So I think the safer option here is to leave your decision as it is for now, especially after what @SportingFlyer said. And if something changes I can restore the page at a later date with more acceptable sources. Which, again, I appreciate you not deleting it and making it a re-direct. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awareness
User Noorullah21 is a very dubious editor who has been requesting to get AutoPatrol and Pending Change Reviewer for not any honest reason but to have the authority to edit and revert the articles as he best fits suitable. This user is also very supportive of editors from his own ethnic group and ignores the disruption and vandalism caused by them. Here is one such example. An editor named Monabhaii made this edit using unreliable self published sources [4]. Another good faith editor removed this change but Noorullah21 reverted the change back knowing very well that the sources are self published from Trafford Publishing and the other source is where the author is not even historian. [5]. So you can clearly see that for someone who is looking for AutoPatrol permit, how can you trust such editor who ignores such details of unreliable sources. He definitely cannot be trusted who also proudly likes to declare that he is supporter of Taliban.[6] editors like Monabhaii, Leviathan12, Abdullah7922 are suspected to be sock puppets of banned editor Kamal Afghan01 [7] as their edits overlap one another. Noorullah21 seems to be well aware but does not pursue to go against such sock suspects as they are contributing to his agenda. 24.3.219.151 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the edits at List of battles involving the Sikh Empire do give cause for concern, I don't see any discussion on the talk page that would make this rise above being a content dispute. In order for this complaint to go anywhere, you either need many more examples of poorly-justified edits by Noorullah or clear examples of them contradicting consensus or obviously misusing sources. The complaint about their professed support for the Taliban makes this notice seem like a political grievance, which further disinclines me to action. signed, Rosguilltalk23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, mentioning professed support for Taliban was over the top but this awareness has nothing to do with political grievance. Focusing on awareness, there are many many examples which will be quite a tedious task to scroll through thousands of edits but I will give few more quick ones. Here is an example of canvassing. Noorullah21 made an edit [8] but when this edit was reverted with good reasoning, another user Leviathian12 made EXACT same edit back [9] and it was obvious of an ongoing canvassing which even another editor recognized [10]. Another example, Noorullah21 removed sources with page numbers and more content with false misleading description that the sources had no page numbers [11]. Reason is very clear and that is that if he isn't happy or satisfied with the result, he will create dubious misleading description to remove the good edits by other users. One more example, an editor removed WP:RAJ source which can not be verified and was added by a dubious editor Monabhaii. But Noorullah21 went ahead and added back the changes of Monabhaii knowing very well again that such WP:RAJ sources are not reliable especially when the source is poorly templated without any proof of verification. [12], especially when he himself gave reason for one of his revert on another article for source being a WP:RAJ as seen here [13]. All this is good enough reason to find this editor not suitable for any AutoPatrol permit. 24.3.219.151 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you bring this to ANI, as I think these accusations need collective evaluation, and that we also need to give an opportunity for Noorullah21 and other editors mentioned to provide explanations for their actions. I really only take admin actions based on reports to my talk page when the behavior is a simple, obvious violation that cannot be explained away as anything other than a clear inability/unwillingness to abide by policy. signed, Rosguilltalk13:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Review
Hello, hope you’re fine and well?
I really admire all your efforts and contributions. Thanks a lot.
Please, is it okay to ask if a review can be done on a page I created since over a month ago.
Here it is: Ebuka Songs. I humbly look forward to hearing from you soon.
This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for collecting more than 500 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly confused as to why neither GM's 2022 TBAN nor its lifting can be found in the AE log, but I assume that if that TBAN was still in place someone would have mentioned it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 9 February
From a quick look I could not find the ban recorded in WP:DSLOG. Could you check and see if it is there? If not it's not too late for you to add it, because the log is only a form of record-keeping. Could the ban have been lifted somehow? If the indefinite ban is still in place ("indefinitely topic-banned from AA2"), then Grandmaster should not have been making edits on Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians at all. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ban was lifted by an AE decision about a year later IIRC. My guess is that it was probably deleted from the log, rather than struck, at that time. Here's the diff of me logging it in 2022 Special:Diff/1072614281. signed, Rosguilltalk18:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without throwing around any blame here - I'm quite capable of forgetting to log - I do think we should enter both the original sanction and its lifting into the log. Both pieces of information are relevant, I'd say, for anyone evaluating the conflict down the road. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the edit where it was removed at the time of the sanction being lifted in October 2022, 8 months after the original ban. I've restored the original ban text, struck it, and provided an explanation with a link to the sanction appeal decision. signed, Rosguilltalk18:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rosguill, thanks for sorting this out. It is ironic that there is some advice at the top of DSLOG which states:
Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry
Hello Rosguill! Over a year ago (About October 2022), I became an NPPSCHOOL student of yours. I had a lot of trouble figuring out the curriculum and keeping up with it. As I haven't edited the page in four months and have a lot more experience with AfC and editing Wikipedia in general, I'd like to withdraw from this program. I feel bad about this, but I just don't think those questions were helping me and I could probably get the NPP user rights without them now. Sorry! —asparagusus(interaction)sprouts!22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matan ibn Uthman, looking through these edits, Zinnober9 appears to have generally provided proper justifications for their edits: across pretty much all of these edits, they responded to either a removal of sourced content without explanation, or the addition or reformulation of new content without a new source. Hounding only applies if there is no overridingly constructive reason [for the edits].-- signed, Rosguilltalk13:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matan ibn Uthman, you are pretty clearly editing against a talk page consensus at Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi; discussion has been ongoing since February 8 and is not looking to be in favor of your position, yet you reinstated your preferred version today on February 10. I would suggest that you self-revert and follow the discussion to its conclusion, or I'm going to have to block you. At Zeila (historical region), in this diff you remove content sourced to the Cambridge History of Africa with the edit summary Added sources. At best, this is insufficient diligence on your part. signed, Rosguilltalk13:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to see more evidence of cross-project meatpuppetry before taking action on this second accusation. It's likely going to take a fair amount of digging, and the involved accounts should be given a chance to speak to their case, so this is something that should be brought to AE, rather than my talk page, if you wish to pursue it further. signed, Rosguilltalk15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Why isn't the article appearing on Google? I've been the Wikipedia editor for a long time now, and whenever I create articles they do appear on Google. But surprisingly this time, it didn't appear. So my question is, Why hasn't the article appeared on Google?
Articles should not appear on Google search until they have been marked as reviewed. I can't speak to whatever happened with the other articles you're thinking of, but it's not too unusual for Google to sometimes pick stuff up even when we haven't released it. signed, Rosguilltalk14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help me to get copy of a deleted profile
Dear Rosguill,
The profile that I have translated from Vietnamese into English ( profile of Michael Baron) got deleted. I really appreciate all feedback and would like to review my work and understand better how to create wiki profiles/improve the profile.
Could you please send me copy of the deleted profile if possible. I would like to see if I can make further improvements and i think others may edited it after me so I may not have final version
Thank you so much. I am really keen to understand better how to do the translations/creations of profiles.
Emma Emma knows it well (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this request suggests to me that you still fundamentally don't understand how English Wikipedia's inclusion policies work, and I'm frankly still under the impression that you have an ulterior motive in writing about Michael Baron. signed, Rosguilltalk14:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start off by stating that Khirurg has complained on the talk page of the admin @ToBeFree, who was rational enough to realise that the usage of the term “childish” is in reference to Alexikoua utilising the term “childish” in unfitting contexts. I’d perhaps toss that up to a language barrier for Alexikoua, but they do have a track record of using that word a lot. Anyways, that’s not really an issue here.
Indeed, I have actual diffs that provide concrete proof of Khirurg reverting me on a couple instances without checking the sources, only to admit they were wrong. So either they were reverting me out of spite, or they were intentionally falsifying sources. I can provide these diffs if need be.
In regards to Khirurg’s “warning”, this was it: I strongly recommend you avoid edit-warring and casting aspersions, unless you want your 3 month block at Battle of Kosovo to become wikipedia-wide. Hardly seems like an appropriate or mature warning to me - it’s quite “inflammatory” (for lack of a better term), so I’m surprised that Khirurg is now complaining about me for responding in a tone that matches theirs. Keep in mind this “warning” is coming from the same user who keeps a list of taunts to try and victimise themselves to the admins with - on this very list there are 3 (yes, not 1, but 3) examples of editors bringing up Khirurg’s past blocks. So, that means Khirurg considers editors mentioning their past blocks as taunts, as Khirurg compiles them on a list of “taunts” against him. In that case, he is intentionally taunting me by bringing up my past block? Interesting stuff. Botushali (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, Botushali, the complaints raised here seem mild enough that I'm not inclined to take action at this time. If you think there is a stronger case to be made that this is a pattern of behavior (with appropriate diffs to back it up), I'd suggest taking it to AE, I really only consider acting on obvious, open-and-shut cases brought to my attention here. signed, Rosguilltalk14:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the first notability tag on the 2023–24 LEN Women's Euro Cup, I brought several foreign articles into the page to improve it. Now, you've put the notability tag back for the page without giving me even an explanation. I have no clue what is wrong with this page. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you cite do not add up to WP:GNG. The best form of coverage for demonstrating that would be in-depth reporting of the championship itself. Looking at the sources cited:
Total-Waterpolo has minimal coverage of the Women's Euro Cup
FOS Online mostly just reprints the bracket listing.
The kind of coverage that actually establishes notability would be sources that analyze the event in depth, rather than just repeating announcements regarding its format. Examples of this kind of coverage are articles like this one, that examine the implications of the tournament's schedule, or this article that comments directly on the cultural significance of the subject tournament, or detailed match writeups such as this.
Now, in this case I think it's plausible that there exists such writeups spread across multiple languages, that may be difficult to find due to the rather generic name of the tournament (and that "LEN" often ends up either translated or omitted, making searching for coverage even harder), which is why today I placed the {{notability}} tag and also marked the page as reviewed, releasing it from the new pages queue for search engine indexing. I had actually forgotten that I had previously tagged this page a few weeks back; I simply came across it again while going through the new pages queue today. Had I believed that this subject has no shot at establishing notability, I would have proceeded to nominate it for deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Edits
@Rosguill I edit on a neutral ground. Am not receiving anything from anybody and not compensated by anybody. I follow the wikipedia policy. I work as an editor on Wikipedia, so as to contribute in a free an fair way Thanks. Jutos222 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding High Commission of The Gambia, New Delhi
Dear Rosguill.
The edits and contributions are made on neutral grounds on subjects where i fairly know a bit more or would have read it. i spend 5-6 hours everyday reading news and content as part of my job, so i would fairly know more about a few developments. I am not paid by anyone to do these things and i am not related to any of these folks. I have gone ahead and undone the edit and i hope I have your respect and goodwill towards the same. Thank you Rosguill. Apologies if my edits created confusion, but i work in full compliance with wiki policies. Sincerely, yours. BellaNYork (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rosguill ! You are the best judge, your primary contention was COI which I clarified, now you change the same to notability. After all it is a government embassy and by default it is notable. Should we wish to change, delete the same, we defeat the very purpose of how society and readers would benefit. I call upon your wisdom to permit the same and i hope good sense prevails. My highest regards and assurances ! Keep cheerful & thank you for your time and consideration. BellaNYork (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to leave a personal message for you. I appreciated your thoughtful responses to me during the unblock discussion. I have a question about the page moves. I noticed later that the latest review I found about the Tohoku earthquake was still describing the plate that Honshu is located on as the "North American or Okhotsk plate" [19]. Microplate was used by Britannica. I got these mixed up. Britiannica is a pretty bad source for tectonic plate articles. I wonder if this is why Vanezi considered the moves inconsequential? It was a mix up on my part so it's ok with me if you undo them. Cornsimpel (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Vanezi's reasoning was more that your edits looked like an uncharacteristic burst of quick activity in response to learning about the extended-confirmed rules than anything else. As I myself have very minimal familiarity with tectonic plate articles, I'd defer to whatever you think is the best representation of reliable sources on these topics. signed, Rosguilltalk13:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International Association for the Study of Dreams (AfD)
Hi, many thanks for drawing attention to the woeful lack of reliable sources at International Association for the Study of Dreams. I've done my best at the AfD to provide multiple new references, including three from The Washington Post, which I found by searching for the organisation's old name "Association for the Study of Dreams". I've listed seven of the best sources at the AfD and I think you should be able to pick your own "top 3" from these. Hope this helps, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs08:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Esowteric, I appreciate the work you've put into this. Unfortunately, I've hit the WaPo paywall, so I'll defer to what others can say about the relevant sources. signed, Rosguilltalk15:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Rosguill! Is there a way to make a request to delete not only the enWiki page but also the faWiki and tgWiki pages of this article? No airport exists in Nazran. Best regards, WikiEditor123…20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
