:::Eh, it's a gray area to be honest as long as you don't have an actual [[WP:COI]] with the subject itself (i.e. while it's natural for you to be somewhat biased towards the state of the article given that you started it, unless you have an actual external relationship with Ichmouratov or this work it's not a full-blown COI). In this case, since we've already discussed it here and I'm confident you're approaching this in the right spirit, I wouldn't object to you removing it yourself (and if I still think there are serious notability issues even then, I would just progress to opening an [[WP:AfD]] so that the community can weigh in and come to a consensus. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 19:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Eh, it's a gray area to be honest as long as you don't have an actual [[WP:COI]] with the subject itself (i.e. while it's natural for you to be somewhat biased towards the state of the article given that you started it, unless you have an actual external relationship with Ichmouratov or this work it's not a full-blown COI). In this case, since we've already discussed it here and I'm confident you're approaching this in the right spirit, I wouldn't object to you removing it yourself (and if I still think there are serious notability issues even then, I would just progress to opening an [[WP:AfD]] so that the community can weigh in and come to a consensus. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 19:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::::That makes sense. Thank you for the quick response. I will do my best to get it right. All the best. [[User:Patrick0506|Patrick0506]] ([[User talk:Patrick0506|talk]]) 19:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
::::That makes sense. Thank you for the quick response. I will do my best to get it right. All the best. [[User:Patrick0506|Patrick0506]] ([[User talk:Patrick0506|talk]]) 19:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
== TPA and rev/del request ==
Hi Rosguill, see the unblock request at [[User talk:Make Way For The King]]. I have already sent an OS request for their edit summaries at [[Kolkata Knight Riders]]. Pinging @[[User:K6ka|K6ka]] who blocked them for their awareness. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 19:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Revisionasof19:53,17May2024
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.
Kapitan110295, as the people who have responded to the discussion have already pointed out, DRV is appropriate if there was an issue with the prior deletion discussion/closure itself. In this case, the situation is that you are asserting that there is now a notable topic by this name, unrelated to the discussion at RfD 3 years ago, so you would have been better off skipping DRV and just drafting a new article since there’s nothing for DRV to evaluate. You can still do that by withdrawing the current discussion (if you’re not sure how to do that, just leave a comment saying that you want to withdraw and someone will do the rest) and then proceeding to start working on the article. signed, Rosguilltalk13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rosguill, the redirect Klaudia Gawlas was deleted 4 December 2020. Before my draft Klaudia Gawlas is moved into the mainspace, I wan´t to make sure everything is alright, not to get a conflict with this deletion. Currently the draft is send for review, but will take to long (2 month). I´am sure she is relevant, but I do not know how to move the article into the mainspace. Any ideas or recommendations? Best regards and happy easter on this way. Stephan Tournay (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan Tournay, at a quick glance everything looks to be in order. The prior deletion of a redirect at Klaudia Gawlas should not be an obstacle to an AfC reviewer promoting the draft, and it should receive a review in due time. The one thing you may want to do is to move the draft to Draft:Klaudia Gawlas, as that is the preferred location for AfC submissions. signed, Rosguilltalk15:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Migrant, citations to sources outside the ISU, which are necessary to establish notability. The most likely example to find would be newspaper coverage of the event, although books or peer-reviewed articles about the sport could theoretically include coverage as well. signed, Rosguilltalk13:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the medalvinner-list for all editions so far at isu.org
Is there anyway we can protect this article per WP:GS/AA enforcement action? Numerous "new users" continue to disrupt this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, battle prominently involving Armenian forces in a area with significant Armenian and Azerbaijani population seems to fit the bill. signed, Rosguilltalk13:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noahide redirect deletion
Hi, thanks for stepping in on the Noahide redirect. I don't understand what is meant by "it is a known scam that paid editors will claim affiliation with editors in a deletion discussion and extort money to "prevent the deletion" (which is not something within their power to do)." I have not received any emails from anyone.
I suppose the other user who was pushing the Noahide thing as "Anabaptist" felt hurt when his edits were rejected. It seems there is a little group of "Noahide" people, relatively new (last decade or so?), who feel that they belong within the Anabaptist umbrella. That's okay if they feel that way, but until they become large enough to make at minimum a tiny ripple in a movement that includes literally a couple of million people, I have a hard time giving them much room for articles relating to Anabaptism. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading was that the other editor in the discussion was targeted by the scammers, who decided to claim to be you, hence the ping. signed, Rosguilltalk00:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Wikipedia admins want to verify whether it was me, they can contact me privately and ask me whatever they want. I suppose for the recipient of the scams, it may add insult to injury if he feels that I tried to extort him, beyond just get the deletion. Sad world we live in, when people try to stir up trouble just for a few dollars. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Maphumor was reported to ANI “ @Maphumor has been culprit for removing various important things from the page and his past edits has also been criticized of the same. Also many new things have been removed in this page. Please revert the changes made by @maphumor and restore the page. Rkvaishnavp (talk) 7:55 am, Today (UTC+1)” I don’t know them but as you alerted them for the ipa area you may. Their talk page is discouraging. Doug Wellertalk12:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller I don't recall what prompted me to place that notification originally. It does look like the removal of the BJP candidate from the page is unjustified, and other editors have complained on the talk page already. I'm disinclined to respond to the AN post because of the various issues with the filing (wrong board, no notification, new account/likely sock) so I've just dropped in on the article talk page and pinged Maphumor to explain their edits. signed, Rosguilltalk13:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller, Maphumor continued to ignore requests to justify their edits at the Tamil Nadu election page while also avoiding further edits to that page, so I stepped in and reverted the contested edit. This nominally makes me ~~involved~~, since policy is hazy on how involvement relates to edits made on behalf of editors who are below the level of protection needed to edit a page who have made semi-formal requests, but I expect that if Maphumor attempts to edit war on that page it will clearly be the time for a block. signed, Rosguilltalk13:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have I made personal attacks against you? I explained in the talk page for Harari people on why I reverted your edits and did not use any personal attacks in the discussion in fact I was calm and explained why I reverted your edit with reasoning. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So trying to removing the disambiguation link of the Habesha peoples page on the main Harari people page is not very honest of you could be construed as a mild personal attack; the edit doesn't need to be personalized as "not very honest of you" and could instead be referred to as "misleading" or "incorrect" without assigning blame. That having been said, I don't think this rises to the level of infraction that would motivate me to impose a sanction on the basis of a report at my talk page, unless it can be demonstrated that this is a consistent pattern despite prior warnings. The prior ANI discussion seems to mostly deal with questions of sourcing, not civility, and doesn't seem to establish a precedent of prior warning. signed, Rosguilltalk19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You @Rosguill if that was a personal attack against @Magherbin than I take responsibility for that. That was not my intention though, my intention was to have a discussion with him/her on why they kept removing the Habesha peoples disambiguation link. This problem never occurred before because the Argobba people and Siltʼe people pages also had that disambiguation link. My intention was simply to argue on why the disambiguation link to that page should not be removed. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was closed because I was blocked for 2 months also in the discussion I still don't see any personal attacks that were used against you by me. I simply explained in a civil discussion on the talk page why I reverted your edit. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, I read the discussion as nom in favor of deletion, 1 clear !vote for deletion, and took your comment as no objection to deletion, as a circular redirect in a collapsed navigation template is typically a poor justification for a redirect. If I misinterpreted your comment and you feel strongly about the discussion I can restore and relist. signed, Rosguilltalk12:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No strong feelings about this. I was only countering the nomination statement regarding no mention at target. Jay 💬15:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rosguill, could you reopen and/or reclose Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#-) possibly? (I meant to respond to Jeske there.) There was really no reason for -/ and -\ to target different targets, and Emoticon counter to the other consensuses to point these generally at the list of emoticons, I have no idea why this would be different. The !keep votes seem to be more in line with "don't delete" and not people actually supporting the status quo. Let me know your thoughts on this, cheers, Utopes(talk / cont)07:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight I don't really care too much, the biggest thing I was hoping for was "consensus that one article is preferable" and that didn't come about, which I feel is a pretty agreeable stance and it'd be nice to have that reflected officially, perhaps. (I know it was relisted twice with no other comments, but if reopened I'd at least like to alert Jeske to the difference in targets and see whether they'd hold their stance after the fact). Utopes(talk / cont)07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: I read this a few times and could not understand. Perhaps it is the .. and Emoticon counter ... that is throwing me off. What is the concern with the close? Did you prefer targeting both to Emoticon? Jay 💬08:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of "emoticon status quo" runs counter to the other similar closes that retargeted to the general list. As a disclaimer, I don't personally have a preference one way or another between the two targets, but I was surprised to see some emoticons go one way and others go another with little rationale.
I was hoping to use the basis of these results as a precedent for retargeting a major list of redirects from emoticons. At the time I wasn't completely sure whether certain types of emoticons have a stronger affinity towards aiming at Emoticon vs aiming at List of emoticons, which is why I was hoping to figure that out through these discussions (i.e., maybe east-asian style have better coverage at page A, whereas smileys are more preferable at page B, was my original thought when I saw the discrepancies in targets.) A lot ended up closing towards List of emoticons, but the split outcome was not the most satisfactory ending for the situation. Utopes(talk / cont)08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utopes, you have my permission to reopen the discussion--I would do it myself but I'm hurrying out the door and expect to be very busy the next few days. signed, Rosguilltalk13:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm coming back into Wikpiedia after a long break to cool down from life in general and Wikipedia to a degree. As I was on my way out of the door I gained an indefinite ban at ITN, enforced by you per the logs. So as a reminder to me, what is required for me to appeal against this, is it simply a thread at ANI or some other request? Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 22:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, community bans should be appealed at WP:AN by opening a thread. I'd maybe recommend taking a few months of on-wiki editing before rushing to appeal though, I would expect that to greatly increase chances of succeeding. signed, Rosguilltalk03:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. I was thinking about make a section about this topic [6]. Where do you think it will be most appropriate, WP:ANorWP:ANI? I feel like the latter doesn't pay much attention to these kind of issues, but I'm not sure. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rosguill. Shravan Tiwari has been moved back to the mainspace. I noticed in the page history that you draftified it in January citing UPE/block evasion concerns; so, I'm just letting you know as a couresy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really hoping you have the time right now. Only the private evidence is private. So, we can talk about the rest of it on wiki. Have you considered becoming a CU? If anyone needs it, that's you. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good Usedtobecool, it was an honest mistake on both our parts and I don't think anyone's planning on throwing the book at us yet (just y'know, opening the book and pointing to a page). signed, Rosguilltalk18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool+1 I was thinking the same for a while now that Rosguill would become a good CU. Since SPI has a backlog now and needs a few helping hands, I think this will be the right time to apply if they feel it is interesting. Regards! Maliner (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, administrators who are not Checkusers or Oversighters should not make private evidence blocks at all, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Confidential evidence, which states The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.
Please send cases like this to either a CU, OS, or to ArbCom. I for one am more than happy to take 'private evidence' referrals from admins in my functionary capacity. firefly ( t · c ) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it when it's time, although my first impulse regarding this (and the encouragement to pursue CU status in the section above) is that for as long as actual new page patrolling makes up a significant portion of my editing, taking on these additional roles might make me more judge-jury-and-executioner than is really appropriate (at least from the vantage point of anyone on the receiving end). signed, Rosguilltalk18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the only relevant materials I have actually acted on are related to the QuadriSayedSahab case; I have not reviewed anything related to the second diff concerning Annuarif although I believe I did receive an email this morning (I have been sick recently and have thus been applying less than my usual diligence in responding to requests). Usedtobecool, please forward relevant further correspondence to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and/or firefly per their volunteering here. signed, Rosguilltalk18:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Thanks firefly. I did often wonder if it's functionaries I should be contacting but that wasn't the practice that I learned when I was learning, and missed that RFC as well. — Usedtobecool☎️18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't believe any of my previous emails included private evidence. They numbered two or three and were sent for a more frank/comfortable communication and/or for communicating sock tells that I had shared more cryptically onwiki. — Usedtobecool☎️18:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The QuadriSayedSahab case involved private evidence sent to me by a different editor. Your description of our past off-wiki communication is accurate to my recollection: it's mostly been about calling out patterns of editing between accounts that would amount to spilling the beans if repeated on-wiki but which did not include anything actually private in nature. signed, Rosguilltalk18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyway we can protect this article per WP:GS/AA enforcement action? An IP has been removing referenced information since 3 May. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Following that user's block from the specified 2 articles, could I ask you to glean through his other ones in the related subject? He has a history of warnings. From what I've seen, his style is inflammatory, and his contributions are large chunks of barely-relevant, poorly sourced and badly written text. AddMore-III (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a consistent pattern of COATRACK editing, yes, although now that the active disruption has been dealt with, nothing that rises to the level that would make it appropriate for me to deliver a sanction as a bolt out of the blue. If you think that the quality of their edits is of such a consistently poor quality that it has become disruptive in general, you can bring a case to WP:AE, but I doubt such a request will be successful unless/until there are examples of 6+ articles where this has happened or new examples of disruptive editing since the p-block. signed, Rosguilltalk01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know about the whole Perakans! As a Malaysian, I still know everything about Peranakan ,you don't know how many ethnicities Peranakan are out there, do you know the difference between Peranakan Chinese Baba Nyonya , Baba Yaya , Kiau Seng ? 2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikipedian, you need to provide reliable sources to back your claims. Also, on English Wikipedia, you need to write in comprehensible English, which your article-space contributions have thus-far fallen short of. signed, Rosguilltalk17:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd draw your attention to the hatnote already at Peranakan Chinese: This article is about Peranakans with Chinese ancestry. For Peranakans with Indian ancestry, see Chitty. For Peranakans with Eurasian ancestry, see Kristang. For Peranakan Muslims of Indian, Malay and Arab descent, see Jawi Peranakan.signed, Rosguilltalk17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request to receive response for my claims in the discussion although I am not "qualified"
hey, did you had a chance to read the discussion before looking it?
I would appreciate if I could get an answer to my questions regarding the request for enforcement in that topic, specifically regarding the policy I have quoted regarding re-instating of content in dispute.
I hope you cold see I am coming with good fait and instead of fighting we could have a fruitful conversation...
"Many users believe that unregistered users' sole contributions to Wikipedia are to cause disruption to articles and that they have fewer rights as editors compared with registered users. Studies in 2004 and 2007 found that although most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism."
Hope that you will address my concern regarding the policy instead of choosing the easy route of calling me disruptive and dismiss my request for rules to be enforced equally :) 109.64.78.25 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are not allowed to edit these topics per WP:ARBCOM's rulings, which are endorsed by the community. This is a necessary measure to address sockpuppetry and persistent bad faith editing in the topic area. End of discussion. Persistent attempts to challenge this as an IP is itself a violation of the ruling, and will result in a loss of editing privileges if continued. signed, Rosguilltalk18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect of the page: String Quartet No. 4 (Ichmouratov)
Dear Rosguill,
I just noticed that you redirected the page about String Quartet No. 4, Op. 35. I realize that I probably didn't address the notability concerns properly and later forgot about it. Now, the page is deleted, and I believe this work by this Canadian composer is important and notable for Wikipedia readers, as it has been performed on multiple occasions in several countries, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. I would like to ask if you could restore the deleted page and give me a chance to improve it and prove its notability with reliable sources.
Thank you, Patrick0506 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick0506 Nothing has been deleted, you should be able to access everything in the page's history, here's a link for convenience to the last revision before redirection [7]. I would have merged information to the article about Ichmouratov himself, except that said article was comprehensive enough that it wasn't clear if it would be appropriate. My concerns regarding the No. 4 article is that the cited sources appeared to praise the album that the No.4 appears on, but dedicate virtually no attention to the No.4 piece itself. signed, Rosguilltalk14:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. I will work on making this page more informative about the composition itself. Patrick0506 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more question. I want to ensure I'm following Wikipedia's rules correctly. After adding more information, if I understood correctly, I cannot remove the "Notability" tag myself since, as the creator of the page, I have a conflict of interest. Should I approach you for this task? Sorry for asking so many questions, this is my first time dealing with this issue, and I want to do everything according to the rules. Thank you in advance for your advice.Patrick0506 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's a gray area to be honest as long as you don't have an actual WP:COI with the subject itself (i.e. while it's natural for you to be somewhat biased towards the state of the article given that you started it, unless you have an actual external relationship with Ichmouratov or this work it's not a full-blown COI). In this case, since we've already discussed it here and I'm confident you're approaching this in the right spirit, I wouldn't object to you removing it yourself (and if I still think there are serious notability issues even then, I would just progress to opening an WP:AfD so that the community can weigh in and come to a consensus. signed, Rosguilltalk19:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]