Contents

User talk:Rosguill

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.

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]

Get well soon, Rosguill. Sorry to have put you in the position. I default to you cos of the NPP connection. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:22, 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, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 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]

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, Rosguill ^talk 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your contributions! :) xRozuRozu (t • c) 04:35, 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, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 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, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome_unregistered_editing

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, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]. 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, Rosguill ^talk 14:23, 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, Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thank you for the quick response. I will do my best to get it right. All the best. Patrick0506 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rosguill, I just wanted to keep you updated in case you would like to check. I have worked on the page over the last few days, adding more information about this composition, including music samples, external audio, and image files. Thank you again for your advice and contributions. it's much appreciated. I feel that I learn something, and I am grateful.

Best regards, Patrick0506 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 @K6ka who blocked them for their awareness. S0091 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like K6ka already (correctly) removed TPA. I've gone ahead and performed the revdel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rosguill. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Where is the evidence there was "extensive copyvio of the original English episode summaries" in Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions: Heart Throb? Now that the history has been deleted, I can't check them for myself to verify your claims. You've also inadvertently left List of Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions episodes with half of its content now gone without any episode list whatsoever for the 2014 series, which is not exactly helpful.--十八 20:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text came up in a copyvios.toolforge.org report that matched the text to www.themoviedb. org/tv/45501/episodes?credit_id=55525564c3a3683d3b001960&person_id=4c85cb465e73d66b5b00006e&language=es-es (n.b. that website is on Wikipedia's blacklist, hence the non-functional link). My guess is that the summaries were likely the original first-party summaries provided by the publisher of the anime, but that is still under copyright and not material we can include on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to see which summaries were potential copyvios? Was it all of them, or just some of them? Seems kind of pointless to discard all of them if only some of them were in violation.--十八 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About 80% of them were matches, and in my experience when that's the case it's usually all of them and the non-matched ones just match to a different page on the site and thus don't get identified in the report. What I can do for you though, is restore the page and bring back the template and all of the other metadata other than the summaries. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, thank you.--十八 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Progressive Zionism forwards to Reform Zionism, where it is claimed that "Reform Zionism (is) also known as Progressive Zionism" but there is no source supporting this claim. This is a misleading claim in the US and in much of the rest of the world. I suggest that this sentence be changed to "Reform Zionism (is) sometimes known outside the US as Progressive Zionism." In the United States, and in the global Zionist movement, Progressive Zionism often refers to a non-religious successor to non-religious Labor Zionism. It is misleading to say that Reform Zionism is also known as Progressive Zionism.

The only part of the Reform Zionism opening paragraph that alludes to this claim is the last sentence, which reads "In Israel, Reform Zionism is associated with the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism." But Progressive Judaism is not ordinarily another term for Progressive Zionism, Progressive Judaism is another term for Reform Judaism. If you go to the website for the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism and do a search for "Zionism" - https://reform.org.il/en/?s=zionism - you will get no responses. It does not use the term "Progressive Zionism" to describe itself. I looked at all of the available sources cited in this article and almost none of them refer to the term "Progressive Zionism."

It seems that only outside of the US, Progressive Zionism sometimes used to mean Reform Zionism. Arza (Association of Reform Zionists of America) Canada almost exclusively uses the term Reform Zionism, and occasionally uses "Progressive Zionism" on their website. As one moves further from the US, the term Progressive Zionism is more commonly used to mean Reform Zionism. Arza Australia https://arza.org.au/about-us/ uses "Progressive Zionism" and Reform Zionism and the World Union for Progressive Judaism uses the term "Progressive Zionism" to mean what in the US is Reform Zionism.

But in the US and in some English media in Israel, Progressive Zionism has a different meaning. It means Progressive in the political sense, not the religious sense. Progressive Zionism in the US has nothing to do with Reform religious Judaism. For example, the 1st hit in a Google search is https://ameinu.net/about-ameinu/progressive-zionism/ . Ameinu is a non-religious organization with a historical connection to Labor Zionism. The 2nd hit is a Hadassah interview with Nomi Colton-Max, the VP of Ameinu. After the Wikipedia article about Reform Judaism, the 4th hit is a Jewish Currents article called "Progressive Zionists Choose a Side." This is not an article about Reform Jews, the Progressive Zionists in the article are『the Peace Bloc—Americans for Peace Now (APN), T’ruah, J Street, the New York Jewish Agenda, the National Council for Jewish Women, Ameinu, Reconstructing Judaism, and Habonim Dror, many of which operate as a loose coalition called the Progressive Israel Network (PIN)』 The 5th hit is https://www.habonimdror.org/progressive-labor-zionism/ , which is part of the Progressive Israel Network and affiliated with Ameinu. Even in American Reform Synagogues, Progressive Zionism is not equated with Reform Zionism. The guest speaker at a Stephen Wise (one of the largest Reform temples in Los Angeles" program about Progressive Zionism is Ken Bob, the president of Ameinu. https://swfs.org/calendar/progressive-zionism-in-light-of-october-7-%F0%9F%99%8B/ This demonstrates that in the US, even Reform Zionists don't think that Reform Zionism is also known as Progressive Zionism.

Internationally, when the official American Zionist Movement presents itself to Israel and the rest of the Zionist world, Progressive Zionism is distinct from Reform Zionism. See https://azm.org/elections/ . The "Reform Zionist" slate is Vote Reform: ARZA Representing the Reform Movement and Reconstructing Judaism. In its description, it calls itself "the largest constituent of ARZENU, the umbrella organization of Reform and Progressive Religious Zionists." Note - "Progressive Religious Zionists," NOT "Progressive Zionists." The Progressive Zionist slate is Hatikvah: Progressive Israel Slate. Its description is "proudly supported by Aleph, Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror, Hashomer Hatzair, J Street, Jewish Labor Committee, New Israel Fund, National Council of Jewish Women, Partners for Progressive Israel and T'ruah ..." - these are the same Progressive Israel Network organizations that are what Americans generally mean when they say Progressive Zionism. The only religious group in the bunch is T'ruah, which is non-denominational - it is not affiliated with Reform Judaism.

In English-speaking Israel as well, Progressive Zionism generally means left-wing political Zionism, not Reform Judaism Zionism. If you look at the articles in The Times of Israel tagged "Progressive Zionism - https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/progressive-zionism/ - most of the articles are about what in the US is considered Progressive Zionism, for example this article about the merger between Ameinu and Americans for Peace Now.

Please make that correction in the Reform Zionism article, and restore the article I started writing about Progressive Zionism as it is commonly known in the US, in the modern-day global Zionist movement, and in the English-language Israeli press. Of course the "Progressive Zionism" could include the fact that outside the US, some English-speaking countries use the term "Progressive Zionism" to mean what in the US is known as Reform Zionism. Tysonsahib (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tysonsahib, please make a formal edit requestatTalk:Reform Zionism for consideration. I'd also recommend trying to make briefer arguments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long argument. I was trying to document the validity of my claims. I was bummed the article I started writing was deleted. I made an edit request as you suggested. Thank you. Tysonsahib (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Is this "allowed" to be rev-del'd? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oi!&diff=next&oldid=1226101870 Thanks! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's obvious vandalism but I think revdel is unnecessary here. It's juvenile, but it's not really offensive per-se and the article in question isn't a BLP and I don't see this being a serious defamation concern. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill, I saw you reverted someone here adding a site on perenial sources page with a reason "rv addition, 3 discussions all of them small, one of them not at RSN, none of them formally closed, and discussion looks like more of a "no consensus" balance than "generally reliable" to me."

While I am not related to the case, I just would like to know the steps I should take so that the site The Nation (weblink: https://www.mwnation.com/) could be added there or on the list of reliable sources.

I tried posting this here but don't know if the outcome will be the same.
Another thing is that I frequently create articles using this source, so I really need the community's input on it. Thanks. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiTumbuka Arch, WP:RSP is not a list of reliable sources per se, it is a list of sources that have been repeatedly, exhaustively discussed. Most sources used on Wikipedia are not listed there. If you are uncertain about a source’s reliability and want the community’s input, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN. Alternatively, if there’s been disagreement in whether or not it’s reliable enough to be used in the contexts you have been relying on it, you can open an WP:RFC at RSN to hopefully get a clearer consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for accumulating at least 200 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Rack and pinion Award
		This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for accumulating at least 15 points during each week of the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you mentioned in this edit that this IP has behavioural similarities to a sockfarm , they still seem to be socking using the same range , and have personally attacked me multiple times. [2] [3] [4][5] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin Given how much the IP jumps around, I'm not seeing a range that we could block. I would offer to remove or strike messages with personal attacks, but it seems like that's essentially been taken care of already. You can request page protection if they make disruptive edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, their range (2404:3100:1800::/40) has been blocked by Spicy as a checkuser block. [6] Ratnahastin (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i was just wondering what could be done about suspicious accounts such as this one @77.87.98.59 which does nothing but revert articles in order to remove mentions of Chechens? Can it be blocked or could the articles they spam be locked so only people with a certain amount of edits can access them? because this account does nothing but remove mention of Chechens like here and here, my rollbacks to original versions (which me, Wikieditor and others agreed upon) are still being removed and i don't want to edit war. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they took a break from editing shortly before you left this message. While their pattern of edits is concerning, I'd like to see more concrete evidence that their edits are clearly tendentious--there's one or two where they give a completely misleading edit summary, but the majority indicate justifiable reasons for changes (e.g. removing unsourced material or material not verifiable with the cited source). If you can demonstrate to me that these justifications were false a block would be in order, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort at this moment given the chance that the IP goes dormant. If disruption continues at these pages it's a basis for protection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples i provided are not enough evidence? the IP is literally just removing any mention of Chechens in the intro from articles such as Orstkhoy (a major Chechen tribe) and Durdzuks (an ancient exonym for Chechens). I am sure you remember how me and Wikieditor/Muqale debated about various sections in these articles but nowhere did any of us disagree that both Orstkhoy and Durzuk are related to Chechens, the talk pages are testament to that if we disagreed on something it was rather who the tribe/exonym was related to most. The removal of unsourced material is fine but again it seems to have been done due to it having mentions of Chechens but the main issue with his edits (the most recent ones) is the removal of the sentence about the Chechen ethnicity of Argun district and the villages transferred to it. This part: "due to them belonging to the same nation as the locals (Chechen) and geographically closer to the central governance of the Okrug." He removes it despite it existing in the source on page 3 in the bottom, again it was already accepted by other editors who usually disagree with me. Only the IP addresses seem to be disagreeing, in my opinion it is enough to ban. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your perspective, and I hadn't realized on the first glance how much sourced text concerning Chechen ancestry was included in the rest of the Orstkhoy article and had just been paying attention to the sections they changed, which were unreferenced. I also hadn't realized that the "return to stable version" (which it in no way was) was their second edit, out of the blue, which to me signals that they both a) clearly have edited Wikipedia before and b) fully understand how disruptive and misleading their editing is. I'm going to go ahead and block for a month or so, given that the IP has about a week of stable history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In February, you gave Benicaverra a UPE warning, which they ignored. On 6 June, they reappeared, removed your warning from their talk page, and made several drive-by "votes" at AfD, all deletes except two keeps at WP:Articles for deletion/Matt Hunt (journalist) and WP:Articles for deletion/MacGregor (filmmaker), both SPA-created articles. This smells like a UPE network, but I'm not sure how best to proceed except raising it at WP:COIN, which probably won't achieve much. I already emailed the CU mailing list with the concerns, given that it wasn't obvious enough to build SPI case on, but no action seems to have been taken. Do you have any suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ignored warning followed by AfD disruption seems like enough for me to justify a block. You may want to also file an WP:SPI between this account and the two accounts that created those AfDs, as they're both SPAs with less than 50 edits, and a CU check may turn up more accounts as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benicaverra. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and we were talking about the need to develop better information on Afro-centric reliable sources. Barkeep49 pointed me to this page and, on looking at its history, it seems you started it and have been constantly improving it. Thank you for your work here! It is a hidden gem that just highlights how knowledgeable editors like yourself do so much to help improve the project quietly, consistently, and professionally. Risker (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, ironically, when I saw the RSN thread bemoaning a lack of assessments of African sources last week my first thought was "oh I've tried and failed to fix that". A few years ago I made an effort to try to launch RfCs assessing the media landscapes of countries obscure to English Wikipedia, but it ended up being a bit of a bust for the same reasons that we lack these assessments in the first place: our editors by and large are not familiar with them. The problem is resistant to proactive solutions within the sphere of English Wikipedia, but at least by documenting the discussions we do have (despite whatever shortcomings and biases they may have) we can incrementally assemble what we think we know in a format that is conducive to further correction, critique and expansion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have seen that you have redirected the page "tiyyar" back to ezhava which was redirected to the page Ezhava earlier. seems like it is removed again by someone else. this page was redirected from years to ezhava and it has been discussed a lot of time. there is no proper source to suggest thatb these both are separate . its like creating multiple pages for the same topic. in addition to that most of the topics mentioned in the article tiyyar seems to be based on newspapers and are fake. it even claims there is a dialect called thiyya in the lead. The main page details all the history of this community. and what is the reason for creating a low quality copy of the same ? multiple times the redirect was added again . In addition to that name tiyyar seems dubious as in almost all sources it is mentioned as thiyya , so thiyya not tiyyar. please look into this. Lisa121996 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that in around 200+ pages the word ezhava is used for thiyyas, this is creating extra confusions, from 2013 ownwards multiple admins have redirected the page to ezhava because of the same. most of the new page sources are simpley news articles while a detailed one with raj era sources are added in the main page . please bring the redirect back. Lisa121996 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa121996 the concerns you raise are valid--I have tried looking into this in the past and was both disappointed and confused by the state of sourcing at Tiyyar. However, there are a lot of sources on Google Scholar that do describe a group by the name "Tiyyar", which would nominally establish that an adequate article could be written, even if the current revision is lacking. The decisive evidence that would support your suggestion of restoring the redirect would be either 1) a high quality source unambiguously saying that Ezhava and Tiyyar (and/or Thiyya) are synonyms or 2) links to prior discussions that establish a consensus around how to treat this group/these terms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ezhava and thiyya being synonymous is clarified by wikipedia admins from the main page ezhava like 100+++ times. wikipedia ,main page itself says in the section variations. like else either would have to separate entire things or else would have to redirect this . the thing is some things are contradicting and confusing , interestingly this was discussed earlier in the page ezhava as well as thiyya , like every once in a while this happens and it would get redirected back , you can check from the page history. the currrent page tiyyar is simply discussing genetics and like 90 percent of the sources are dubious when we talk about a large commununity and there is a properly researched page with raj era sources , what is the point in creating this to confuse the audience ? i would reccomend to redirect it back Lisa121996 (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its just the alternative name which is synonymous : Quoting from the main page Ezhava --> They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and Chogons in Central Travancore; and as Thiyyar, Tiyyas and Theeyas in the Malabar region.

This is from the section variations from the main page ezhava. the problem is since these both are included together it would require to split like the entire pages , if it is separate . I have checked the past edits and archieves and the main admins had made it clear that both are same . It would require splitting up the page "Ezhava" too . Else it is like creating 10. 20 pages with the same name. Also thiyyas are being counted as a separate ethnicity in the page tiyyar in most of the cases including the govt records the name is thiyya , so like it is extra confusion. All the details are well discussed in the main page ezhava. the current page tiyyar even discusses , genetics like indo aryans etc, is a mere news article enough enough for this claims  ?? the article claims things like separate dialect for thiyya. I mean how can this be in an anecyclopedia even a news article wont say this Lisa121996 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proofs:

Also , I was just checking up the talk in the page Talk:Ezhava - Wikipedia admins have made clear that. you can check . (check the last one)

Also below are the links where almost everyone have reverted it back stating the same reason as wikipedia considers it as one.

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

regarding book sources - The main page ezhava have that .

So it is clear with the disputes and the decision. the user 'HariNellattl' has been constantly removing this once in a while while the editors were reverting.

So if you are adding the redirect back as per the other admins did previously kindly do it in a protective way as i doubt there are group of soc accounts surfing around this page . they will revert it within seconds just like they did with your first edits.

Also in most of the pages in wiki these both are synonymously used, identifying this as separate would require the entire thing to be changed. otherwise this only contribute to misinformation and confusion .

thanks. Lisa121996 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The heading of this page is "Ezhava" ,while the irony is that in the first pragraph itself 2 images are being conpared - this is no longer the case. They are both captioned at being Ezhava (as the article lead identifies "Ezhava" and "Thiyyar" to be synomous (they are local names for the same group)

The page is providing an outdated citation and with the help of that is trying to defame both ezhava and one other community . - can you please specify which citation is concerning you.

- the page Thiyya redirects to Ezhava.

SSSB (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a similar edit request and the reply, that i found from the page ezhava the link , I have copied the needed points and decision i have provided the link -- Talk:Ezhava - Wikipedia pasting it again. (for full discussion) .

Also the main page ezhava itself claims so please check the part variations. these all need to be removed else it would become so contradictory statements. Lisa121996 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding broadly to all of the above: 1) I am arguably WP:INVOLVED at this point and thus should not take admin actions, you should make a case at WP:ANIorWP:AE if you're calling for the page to be protected. 2) While this doesn't preclude you from being correct, the evidence you've provided in the form of small, several-year-old Wikipedia discussions and the content of other Wikipedia articles is extremely weak. In the absence of a clear, recent consensus of multiple editors, you really need to make your case based on citations to RS.

I would recommend that you be WP:BOLD and make the changes you believe are necessary, and if that means restoring the article to redirect status, open an WP:AFD and bring it to broader discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well this is actually not small discussions this has been the stand of the page since years and this was always redirected also most of the contents in the page are from news articles while main page details everything Lisa121996 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that there were multiple pages opened in the name , if all is removed it would lead to again multiple pages. My main concern is majority of the sources are simpley recent news artciles and the article is claiming multiple things like a separate dialect for thiyya , that too in the lead . Lisa121996 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you recommended WP:BOLD , I have redirected the page the valid informations are :

They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and ChogonsinCentral Travancore; and as Thiyyar, Tiyyas and Theeyas in the Malabar region.^[1][2][3] Some are also known as Thandan, which has caused administrative difficulties due to the presence of a distinct caste of Thandan in the same region.^[4]

Even some form of disputes from both sides are also mentioned in the main page :

Also from a decade ownwards multiple pages related to this groups like thiyya.tiyyar,theeyya etc were redirected to the main page . So while the main page contains almost all informations from the WP:RAJ sources , I cant find them being different , this is violating all policies WP:V

WP:GNG

Definitely the raj era and historic books are weighed more than recent news articles. In addition to that the page views thiyya/ezhava as separate ethnicity , which is contrary to all the early sources and the stance of wikipedia regarding the main page Ezhava.

For eg sources all the sources i provided are used as primary by wikipedia in the main article and it openly declares both as synonymous. I can provide 10 ++ sources for the same . Lisa121996 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiyyar page is mostly copied from Ezhava page, and sources are also same. The expert on this topic @Sitush said many times that both Ezhava and Thiyya are same group, so not meeting notability critierias. But he is no active now, so the page was made i think. Is that ok? Piyush Chekavar (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I add the notability tag to article. I pinged @Sitush also, but i think he is not working these days. Piyush Chekavar (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its not just sitush , sssb, and many other editors from the main page Ezhava have taken the same stand . The page is claiming this to be separate , if so the first article need to be split or else this is a low quality duplicate copy plus some dubious info from news articles . Also the page is saying nothing about the main page , this is violating those policies. Lisa121996 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Malayalam Wikipedia article exists and its been almost 10 years the article created. [[7]] Dpvl (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was redirected from the time it was created for like 10 years Lisa121996 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and ChogonsinCentral Travancore; and as Thiyyar, Tiyyas and Theeyas in the Malabar region.

Even some form of disputes from both sides are also mentioned in the main page :

Also from a decade ownwards multiple pages related to this groups like thiyya.tiyyar,theeyya etc were redirected to the main page . So while the main page contains almost all informations from the WP:RAJ sources , I cant find them being different , this is violating all policies WP:V

WP:GNG

Definitely the raj era and historic books are weighed more than recent news articles. In addition to that the page views thiyya/ezhava as separate ethnicity , which is contrary to all the early sources and the stance of wikipedia regarding the main page Ezhava.

For eg sources all the sources i provided are used as primary by wikipedia in the main article and it openly declares both as synonymous. I can provide 10 ++ sources for the same .

valid sources which treats both are same : The sources are attached

Lisa121996 (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Further discussion should take place at Talk:Tiyyar or another relevant discussion page, as opposed to here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, Before but before lifting the revision , a conclusion need to be there regarding the persisting issues .

  this was discussed way before and the conclusion was always the redirect . Lisa121996 (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that this article was in a redirect for like 10 years because of the same issue and this been discussed many times in addition to that there are more weighable sources which considers both as same , in addition to that the article is a copy version of the main page without any mention regarding that. multiple pages like tiyya was deleted previously and this was redirected. This need to be resolved before lifting the redirect . I have intiated a talk section there in the page . Lisa121996 (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosguill I dont know you are WP:INVOLVED in this or not . However since you are dealing with redirects . I would like to point out a serious issue related to this .

multiple accounts in the name thiyya, thiyyas , tiyyas etc were created previously claiming that these are distinct from Ezhava, However in all cases the consensus was that all these pages in the names "thiyya,tiyyas,thiyyas were permanently redirected to the page Ezhava. Providing the links

[[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]

An ongoing issue of randomly lifting the redirect (only temporarily solved ) is also happening in recent Tiyyar

The irony is that these groups have again submitted another draft in the name "Thiyar" making similar claims and pointing to similar people . link - [[13]] , that means 6 th duplicate copy "Thiyar" is being created after "thiyya,tiyyas,thiyyas,thiyyar and Tiyyar My humble question is what is a permanent solution for this ?? They are simply changing the spelling and coming up with the same contents and talking about the same people. Ezhava , this is been discussed since a long time. Again since you deal with redirects is there any permanent solution to this ? I am amazed to see , How such a credible platform is being exploited by these groups simply by changing the spellings. Lisa121996 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa121996, this sounds like a case of WP:GAMENAME--step 1 is to raise the issue with the editors engaging in it on their user talk pages. If that doesn't address the issue, open a case at WP:ANIorWP:AE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were the blocking admin for User:Murmayo, but just going through expiring ANI threads, I looked in at his talk page, which had additions that aren't merely TPA-revocation worthy, but cross the line into revdel territory to boot: [14]. Just thought you ought to know. Regards, Ravenswing 12:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, thanks for letting me know. I've gone ahead and pulled TPA access with someone else having already wiped the page clean. I decided against REVDEL since I can't really imagine someone being disrupted by its existence in this talk page's edit history so far off the beaten path, and thus it would be excessively covering the tracks of my own admin action's. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no problem; that's why they pay you the big bucks. (However metaphorically.) Thank you for doing a thankless job for us all. Ravenswing 13:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway we can protect these articles per WP:GS/AA enforcement action? Five users, each with under 500 edits, have been changing information since May 8th, June 17th for Late Ottoman genocides. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]