Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:22, 22 January 2025

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.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

the indefinite topic ban

Hello, Rosguill. Yesterday I was left heartbroken after being banned from the AA topic by you without a chance to respond to the Vanezi's misrepresenting claims.

May I write my response to Vanezi that would consist of a table and several references to the AA topic?

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hew Folly, no. I gave you a chance to respond, waiting until you continued editing before addressing the concerns raised. You ignored the concerns, and proceeded to post a The message on Lucky102's talk page alone is clearly against the letter and spirit of GS/AA and merits a ban after having received the prior warnings from Firefangledfeathers (as would the edits I identified from the report). You have received sufficient warnings and second chances already. Your remaining recourse is to follow the standard appeals procedures described in the ban notice. I would strongly recommend that you first demonstrably build up your editing skills and dedication to Misplaced Pages by making significant contributions to other topics. _signed, Rosguill 14:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Chance to respond

I gave you a chance to respond, waiting until you continued editing before addressing the concerns raised. You ignored the concerns, and proceeded to post a The message on Lucky102's talk page alone is clearly against the letter...

I propose to look through chronology:

My post on Lucky102's talk page was written at 05:16 on November 12, 2024 .

Vanezi wrote his distorted claims more than 16 hours later, at 22:13, November 12.

And you issued your ban less than 24 hours after the Vanetsi's letter in the absence of my answer, at 14:55, next day, November 13.. And then issued your ban notice right after that(one minute later), at 14:56, November 13 , and then on the AEL page, just three minutes later or at 14:59, November 13.

All my edits after the Vanezi's letter were either related to my response on my draft page or those posted on your talk page on starting from 16:10 November 13 to November 14. . Last but not least, the edits were done more than 1 hour after you imposed your ban, and not before.

Conclusion: you technically couldn't impose your ban due to alegged disregard to the raised issue (in the form of post on Lucky102 and edits after the issue) from my side for the following reasons:

1. My post on the Luck102's page was written before the issue was ever raised.

2. All my edits after the issue was raised were not only related to the issue itself but were also done after the ban was actually imposed.

Do you agree?

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER. I still think the ban is warranted for the reasons I have already laid out, I do not disagree with the technicalities you point out but they're ultimately irrelevant. You have not demonstrated care for abiding by GS/AA after warnings; no further warning or response was required following the initial CTOPs notice left by FireFangledFeathers about 3 months ago. I'll also note that you're addressing comments that I had already struck and amended as of several hours ago. _signed, Rosguill 18:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER. I still think the ban is warranted for the reasons I have already laid out, I do not disagree with the technicalities you point out but they're ultimately irrelevant.

Sure, I have some questions about them, too. But let's finish this one, because there's still some unclarity about that:

I'll also note that you're addressing comments that I had already struck and amended as of several hours ago

I have checked both the older and current versions and noticed that only one of the comments I addressed was struck , while the first line (I gave you a chance to respond, waiting until you continued editing before addressing the concerns raised.) remains unchanged in both versions. .

Let me just clarify if you still stand with it.

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in the application of the text striking. This has now been addressed. _signed, Rosguill 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! We have finished this part and now I suggest to start working on the next one. Hew Folly (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:Tendentious, relevance and source-free

After our previous discussion, I appreciate your modified post on my talk page. Although there is still some unclarity:

I am also deeply concerned by the most recent comment, which is another irrelevant, RGW and source-free statement about Armenia-Azerbaijan.

So, we have two comments: Mine and that of Lucky102:

1. The Lucky102's post was written on a Stepanakert talk page that was published on January 16, at 06:06. .Note: as you can see, Lucky102's post was published with no links but WP:OR (which is legitimate for a Talk page), supported by links to Misplaced Pages pages , not specific sources, proper.

2. My post on his Talk page published several months later on November 12, at 05:16. . Note: this post, as you can see, was tagged with a link to his post on another talk page, and provided with a source to a text on another Misplaced Pages page that itself had a source .

Was my statement on the Lucky102's source-free, as you mentioned here  ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hew Folly (talk • contribs)

The difference is that as an editor who is not yet extended confirmed, you are expressly forbidden from making any edits to this topic at all, unless they are obviously constructive improvements like correcting spelling mistakes, updating information based on RS, etc. Lucky102's comment in this case does appear to be subpar and reflects poorly of them. If they exhibit a consistent pattern of behavior in this fashion, they may face sanctions. But as an editor with more than 500 edits and 30 days, they are allowed to participate and that means some leeway for being less-than-constructive in discussions. You have not reached that level of clearance, and thus are held to a higher standard per WP:GS/AA. The exceptions to GS/AA exist to allow us to accept clearly beneficial edits that no one would object to; you have repeatedly abused them to make polemic arguments on talk pages, and for this reason you have been indefinitely banned from the topic.

I believe that I have sufficiently explained the grounds for the sanction. Any further appeals should be made to WP:AE. _signed, Rosguill 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that I have sufficiently explained the grounds for the sanction. Any further appeals should be made to WP:AE

To appeal to WP:AE (or any other relevant Misplaced Pages arbitral institution) is exactly what I am planning to do, but I need to clarify all the unclear issues, as you recommended yourself .

Lucky102's comment in this case does appear to be subpar and reflects poorly of them.If they exhibit a consistent pattern of behavior in this fashion, they may face sanctions.

And that's exactly what I meant when wrote that Lucky102's statement was not subject to the Misplaced Pages rules. Can we now agree that my post on his talk page was relevant, not WP:Tendentious due to this reason and the fact that I actually supported his point, and definetely not source-free? If yes, please modify your comments here .

GS/AA, Polemic ≠ disruptive

The exceptions to GS/AA exist to allow us to accept clearly beneficial edits that no one would object to; you have repeatedly abused them to make polemic arguments on talk pages

How can I know if anyone would object my argument or not? And according to the rules you referred to, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Polemic ≠ disruptive. I took part in polemics after receiving warning from FireFrangledFeathers, was reported, warned again yet, supported by FireFrangledFeathers themselves in multiple cases . Hew Folly (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of wikilawyering that is unlikely to persuade anyone to unban you. I believe that I have sufficiently explained the grounds for the sanction. Any further appeals should be made to WP:AE. _signed, Rosguill 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts match Rosguill's. It's very unlikely that an appeal based on these grounds will succeed, and it's likely that it would worsen the chances of a future appeal based on better ones. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers@Rosguill Thanks for advice! I appreciate that! Can we set the record straight here? Hew Folly (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd want to continue to talk about your ECR violation, except to say that you understand that it was one and will be sure it isn't repeated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Guidance

Hi Rosguill, thought i'd reach out as I saw you had issued a topic ban for Ratnahastin in 2021. I'm concerned about their behavior on an article (among others) and seeking guidance on whether the 2021 ban needs to be revisited. Looks like it was lifted in December 2023.

In their appeal they mentioned that "In the future, I will only rely on broad perspective scholarly sources for the changes i wish to make and utilise venues such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN incase the dispute arises. I will avoid making any edits that might be deemed promoting a POV. If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring . I will not accuse or cast aspersions against any fellow editor. I will maintain civility and take additional time to seek the consensus". However, recently, I've observed how their behavior has violated the conditions by which they sought appeal. To keep this brief, will try to limit my diffs to one article, but as I said before, am concerned it's also going on on other articles.

• For starters they copied one pov of an incident from the article into the lead without accurately summarizing the entire details from the body in a npov
• Ignored questions raised on talk when reverted
• Disregarded reliable sources that don't meet their POV:
• Edit warring and tag teaming with editors who had no prior history/edits on the article to bait a new user into violating 3RR and getting them banned for some time, only to later add in the content the editor was trying to point out earlier
• Instead of trying to seek consensus on the talk, they haven't WP:AGF and filed an SPI against me and other users who have attempted to engage in discussion

Eucalyptusmint (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Eucalyptusmint, based on these diffs this seems like it's still at the level of a content dispute.

• For the first point, the lead expansion is perhaps off base, but the text clearly includes that the claims are "alleged", and the sources used to support most of the additional details undermining the suit appear to generally cite weaker sources, so it doesn't seem to be a foregone conclusion that they're due for the lead. Is this edit going to win Ratnahastin a Defender of the Wiki barnstar? No. Is it grounds for an immediate sanction? Also no.
• Ignoring the questions raised on talk would be a significant concern if they continued to make edits to that page contra the objections after they were made, but the questions seem to have been made after Ratnahastin's last edits to the page.
• Dismissing the AP source out of hand is perhaps the most concerning thing listed here, but they don't appear to address that source directly, so it's not clear whether this is tendentious. It's also not clear that AP really supports most of the issue under contention, as most of the contentious information seems to be attributed to Trivedi, in which case ignoring it is less of an issue.
• I think that the evidence related to the edit warring does not demonstrate that this was an attempt to bait anyone into anything, and Ratnahastin was only peripherally involved with that.
• Editors are allowed to file SPIs if they provide appropriate evidence; if it's baseless and clearly tendentious, that will be evident from the result of the investigation and action can be taken at that time.

_signed, Rosguill 17:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking some time out provide your thoughts! I can see how this can be seen as a content dispute, but as far as the RS I think it would be unlikely that the AP along with other widely circulated Indian sources are all deliberately falsifying the same set of facts. Regardless, I'll look into this further to see if there's any independent verification of these facts available. And to my point about being concerned, I'll also take a look again to determine if this is indeed merely a matter of differing viewpoints on one article or a wider re-emergence of similar behavior that had previously led to their tban. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

re: Walter Tau topic ban

FYI, I've blocked Walter Tau for a week for violation of the topic ban you issued them recently.⇒SWATJester 02:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Flagging if you've not seen

Rosgulla haven't blocked but seems concerning. Star Mississippi 17:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s not quite impersonation, but their edits look like an AfD troll or gaming attempt _signed, Rosguill 18:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

with some sock puppetry potentially thrown in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ANZER.AYOUB cc @Maliner as I'm not familiar with this group. Star Mississippi 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw the new case too as I have that on my watchlist. It does look like a behavioral match to me but I’ll leave that to CUs or another admin to confirm _signed, Rosguill 18:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Thanks for your ping I have replied you on SPI. Maliner (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban about bludgeoning

I don't know what the details are surrounding the topic ban you logged at Special:Diff/1257355698, but the type of bludgeoning it was supposed to prevent is still ongoing at Talk:List of video games considered the best#List fails several wiki rules and has now spilled over into WP:ORN#Potential SYNTH violation on "video games considered the best" list article in a way that's becoming a huge mess. Pinging Valereee, who I see is also involved in this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

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 Misplaced Pages. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 23:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Rosguill! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Appeal Regarding My Topic Ban

Dear Rosguill,

Merry Christmas.

I am writing to respectfully appeal the topic ban you imposed on me. I understand that i have made mistakes, and I take full responsibility for them.

Upon reflection and further educating myself on the policies of Misplaced Pages, I realize where I went wrong, and I now better understand the importance of following to Misplaced Pages's guidelines.

I am genuinely passionate about contributing to[REDACTED] in a constructive and collaborative manner. Moving forward, I am committed to ensuring that my edits align with community standards and that I have respectful yet informative discussions with other[REDACTED] editors.

I kindly ask you to reconsider my topic ban, or at least provide guidance on steps I can take to rebuild trust within the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Lemabeta Lemabeta (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lemabeta, I appreciate your reflections. Generally speaking, topic bans like this are only lifted following demonstrated constructive editing to other topics. I would recommend working on editing topics not affected by the ban for a few months (if you're not sure where to look, WP:TASK has a long list of different things to do). _signed, Rosguill 17:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Eric Rajah

Hey Rosguill, I was going over the AfC for wikiproject Christianity when I stumbled on the aforementioned draft. I was about to pass it because it met the minimum notability standards, but I saw that you draftified it due to the creator's COI. Before I do anything to the draft submission, I want to check with you first to make sure it is alright to pass first. The picture might need to go and further edits to ensure neutrality in tone might be needed, but in my opinion, I think it can go back to the mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

HistoryTheorist, the COI concern was reason for it to be sent to AfC, but now that you're reviewing it there it's fine for you to accept the submission. Taking into account my conversation with the initial editor a few months ago, I think it's clear that while there is a personal connection to the subject, it's not UPE (even if their acknowledgment of this isn't quite by-the-book), so if it meets notability guidelines and other relevant policy then it's ok to publish. _signed, Rosguill 14:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I don't know what to do about the picture though. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine--he's claimed it as own work, and all indications suggest that's true. Photos provided by someone close to the subject aren't in themselves a problem--they're usually just an obvious giveaway that someone has a COI. But it's been disclosed, so that's water under the bridge. If there were something egregiously non-neutral about the photo it would be a different story, but that's not a problem here. _signed, Rosguill 21:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Chiyo miyako

I did not undelte that article because i am a sock my reason for undeleteting the artcile is the blatant agenda of the editors who delted it 6 years ago if you check the WP longevity page youll see there was a mass deletion if artfiles such as this one with the basis being "being old isnt notable" which is a inherently subjective article i would also like to point out that the first afd result was overturned as there was a clear majority to keep the article so what happens? The exact same group of editors wait a couple months then rush it into afd again while most people have left the area i dont think this is sufficient critea to keep an article deleted and such an argument as "being old isnt notable" isnt generally accepcted anymore hence i have undeleted an article because the reason for delelting it in the first llace was extremely flimsy and doene witn pseudo shady tactics Wwew345t (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

And you can also see that i havent undeleted EVERY article like that Wwew345t (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please explain how you became familiar with the positions of editors from 6 years ago prior to making your first edit on this website? _signed, Rosguill 22:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

well I may not have been an editor for very long but I have been a reader for much longer I used to edit all the time on "the gerntolgy wiki" before the grg staged a hostile takeover of the site and eliminated any reference to lq or any other longevity organization so I migrated here and while my main focus is longeivey article (which lead me to researching how hundreds of articles somehow all got deleted in a 2 month span) I do try to edit other pages basically what I'm trying to say is I'm trying to reform that article topic as many pages that were arguably better written articles then other were deleted for seeming trivial and subjective reasons Wwew345t (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if this mwssage seems hostile admittly i an not rhe best with words im just tryitng to explain my reasoning for undeleting this page Wwew345t (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Mk. I still get the overall impression that you're an old hand coming back with long-held grudges regarding disputes on this site, but I personally am not invested in the Chiyo Miyako article and don't intend to dispute further. _signed, Rosguill 22:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Advanced Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, United Blasters (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

United Blasters (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Your close of the AA discussion

While I agree that this was going nowhere fast, and that opening the discussion was technically a violation of GS/AA, I tend to think that this is a situation where we should IAR. It seems procedurally unfair not to allow non-EC editors to appeal community restrictions that affect their ability to edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

voorts, I considered that, which is why I didn't impose any sanctions or further warnings from what is otherwise a clear-cut violation. However, it was clear that they were intending to bludgeon the discussion and that other editors were collectively taking the bait, so I decided to close it to conserve community time. _signed, Rosguill 01:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with closing this discussion; my intent was to make a note more generally about IAR. And, for what it's worth, I think SSCG was being earnest here. They initially posted at ARCA and when I told them that that was the wrong place, they opened this at the proper forum (unfortunately before I could share some advice with them). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Rosguill, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Happy New Year!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for conducting 2,044 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi and thanks for the new page review permission.

Are you happy to adopt me while I get up to speed on this?

I'm thinking that my first step would be to look at a new page and run my view past you before I act.

I'd probably begin by trying to identify AfD.

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer that seems reasonable. Another way to get up to speed quicker is, whenever you come across a page you aren’t sure about in the queue, watchlist it and see what other editors decide. _signed, Rosguill 14:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Made a start and nominated Francis Glennie for deletion. Was that the right move? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

At a glance, looks like the right call, although the AfD discussion itself will be the true judge of that. What searches did you conduct for the WP:BEFORE?

I normally wait longer since the creation of an article and/or since a notability tag was placed (~1 week usually) before proceeding to deletion, but I think I’m unusually cautious in that approach (and I also focus on the articles at the back of the queue, which have usually already been sitting unattended for some time). _signed, Rosguill 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply..

Just Googled and came up with nothing.

I'm thinking that rather than tag in a fairly clearcut case, with a large backlog in mind, some speedy (but not hasty) housekeeping might be a good approach? As you say the AfD discussion should save it if it's worth saving. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Violation

Hello Rosguill. You were the blocking admin of Viceskeeni2 before they were unbanned with a tban condition from Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. They're still under a tban but I believe that have violated it and discussed about the article prior to violation . I believe the article is covered by their tban as it mentions in this section: "According to oral tradition in Diyarbakır, the first kadayif vendor in the city was an Armenian shop owner named Agop."

I have brought the issues of tban violations by this user to another admin in past months as well, this isn't the first time , . Vanezi (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I actually was aware of that edit already, as I have been WP:INVOLVED at Kadayif (and related pages). I'm definitely not going to take action here due to involvement, but I also think that their editing at Kadayif was not a topic ban violation--while there is content on Kadayif that does fall within the sanctions regime, their edits to the page avoided changing or adding any of that content. Had they touched any of the text about Agop, I would have reported them to AE. _signed, Rosguill 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Here we go again

Raufabbasov0007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Rosguill. Sorry for bothering you. Unfortunately after one causing trouble a new one immediately arrives. Raufabbasov0007 is quickly turning Talk:Iskandar Beg Munshi into a WP:FORUM/WP:SOAPBOX-like WP:NPA WP:BATTLEGROUND place, despite being informed of WP:GS/AA, WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.

İnsulting and exposing Hate to Azerbaijan is embarrassing. / This means you are not here to share information , this means you want to expose hatred for the people of Azerbaijan. / And also "İnsulting us" like that is not appropriate behaviour in Misplaced Pages community.

Again you are exposing hatred and trying falsify history. / Iran has always been aggresive to other countries such as USA and European countries and to Azerbaijan.

So dont try to Falsify history giving that links which all of them written by Persian "writers" which is not considered academic.

you exposed Hatred and Insulted my Country-Azerbaijan by writing that

...which also showes again your "Hatred for us". / Dont be a foe. / And you cant restrict me writing from his work to wikipedia. I will do write it again.

As you can see in the end, they are even threatening to engage in edit warring, despite WP:GS/AA. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted their most recent GS/AA violations without replies and issued a further warning. _signed, Rosguill 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rosguill! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Plaka

Hey. We have a dispute on Plaka on whether some new additions are original research or not. Since you have experience with RfCs and content disputes, could you provide your opinion as an experienced editor and your reading of the OR policy? If you are not interested, sorry for taking time with this. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, sure, I can take a look in a bit. _signed, Rosguill 15:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you also look into these personal attacks by Ktrimi991 . It is impossible to reach any kind of agreement with an editor who behaves like this. Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Btw, Rosguill, I have a question about Hasan Zyko Kamberi. Some time ago I reported it for copyright issues and, after its deletion, I recreated it. If time permits, I might work on it and also add some content. If the article becomes 6k or 7k bytes in size (there is little info available on the subject due to a lack of historical records), could the small size be an issue in a possible GA nomination? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ktrimi991, I honestly don't have all that much experience with GA review. Reviewing the relevant criteria, WP:GACR6 #3a it addresses the main aspects of the topic, (and that this is contrasted with the FA requirement that a featured article should be "comprehensive") would suggest to me that the article would be fine for GA provided that all the main pieces of the subject's biography are accounted for, even if they're brief. _signed, Rosguill 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I will improve the article as much as I can, and then will make the nomination. Based on the guideline you cite, a small article size for this subject seems to be acceptable. The small amount of available info should justify this, as far as the article is neutral and well-written. Thank you, Rosguill. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Nice noises aside, he still hasn't struck his personal attack at Talk:Plaka despite your urging, and seems unlikely to do so without some gentle prodding. Khirurg (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, you shouldn't need this many reminders to strike aspersions. If either of you have anything further to say about each other, I expect it to be at AE, and for it to involve substantial enough evidence to justify being there. _signed, Rosguill 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill, in my response I gave you right on everything you said on the article's tp, including the fact that it was not the right place for me to comment on the other side's intentions. What was said was said and time can't be turned back. That being said, after you rejected Khirurg's stance on the content dispute and agreed with me, they shifted their focus on that particular comment of mine. It is a dead horse, as I have already admitted I should not have made the comment in the first place. ANI/I is for complaints indeed, not the article's tp. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That's quite a way of saying, "No, I won't strike my personal attacks". And the problem is not that the article tp wasn't the "right place" for your comment, it's that it's not ok to comment on other users, period. "What was said" can be very easily "turned back" by striking your comments. Khirurg (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)