User talk:Rosguill/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rosguill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
AE discussion
I found your comments to be measured and reasonable.
Would you be open and willing to giving me some advice?
-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bob drobbs, what sort of advice are you looking for, exactly? signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Without any exaggeration, I am sincerely puzzled as to how Huldra's editing behavior and Nableezy's editing behavior is seen as basically without any fault (apparently?) but my edits have been so horrific that two admins are suggesting an indefinite ban. I'm not going to claim perfection in the very heated realm of IP discussions. I could have done better and in particular been more patient, but I don't feel I've done anything so egregious to justify a possible indefinite ban. Especially as I've never been subject to any disciplinary action before. I'm hoping you can help me understand. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bob drobbs, I think the issue has little to do with your edits to articles and is based on behavior around them, namely that you filed an AE request asking for sanctions on behavior that isn't sanctionable (which cannot be equated to a legitimate AE case filed by Nableezy that included verifiable evidence of sockpuppetry and which resulted in a block). Telling someone that if you don't stop edit warring they're going to take you to AE is not considered harassment; a frivolous AE case, however, is a significant waste of time for everyone involved, and I think the calls for a topic ban are primarily based on that and the continued attempts to insist that Nableezy has a COI with David Collier (which, despite the persistence of this demand by you and others, has yet to win any support from uninvolved editors; I would go as far as to say that I don't think Nableezy would be considered to have a COI with Collier unless they started a defamation lawsuit against Collier or otherwise took significant, off-Wikipedia action against him). I'd also add that reading through the other admin responses, I think the call for "indefinite" has less to do with them thinking that you have committed capital wiki-sins and more that they do not believe in timed bans for BATTLEGROUND behavior (I don't know that I fully agree, but I see where they're coming from based on a strict reading that bans must be preventative, not punitive; timed battleground blocks have a more punitive bent). signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Six months is far better than indefinite. I'm going to take some time and ponder if I'm going to appeal or not. But as you believe the primary issue was filing the AE, I want to point out that Johnuniq was the one who suggested that if someone excessively made calls for me to be banned, that I should take it to AE:
"Is there an ongoing problem? Anyone (apart from those who have been topic banned) is free to suggest that someone should be topic banned. The only problem would be making a fuss (e.g. by repeating the claim excessively) as it is an issue for WP:AE. Johnuniq"[1]
- It was based on my reading of Johnuniq's advice, that I started that AE request, and I do so only after I did all of the following :
- Request to stop on article talk page
- Request to stop on his talk page
- Request for him to join me in mediation
- After all of that one more suggestion he was going to report me felt "excessive". My intent was not to engage in war, but to create peace. And if you look, within hours Nableezy and I actually came to agreement. He agreed that it was much more appropriate to make these statements on my talk page, and he would try to do so. I would return the favor. My interpretation is that we quickly made progress through this structured process.
- So I wouldn't mind your advice again. Do you think an expanded version of this demonstrating that my intent isn't to battle but actually to create peace and work together, would be taken seriously as an appeal for a reduced sentence? Or would it would just be laughed out of the room? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bob drobbs, I would suggest waiting before appealing. Consider appealing for a reduction once you've made new, substantial collaborative edits to another topic. signed, Rosguill talk 05:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Six months is far better than indefinite. I'm going to take some time and ponder if I'm going to appeal or not. But as you believe the primary issue was filing the AE, I want to point out that Johnuniq was the one who suggested that if someone excessively made calls for me to be banned, that I should take it to AE:
- Bob drobbs, I think the issue has little to do with your edits to articles and is based on behavior around them, namely that you filed an AE request asking for sanctions on behavior that isn't sanctionable (which cannot be equated to a legitimate AE case filed by Nableezy that included verifiable evidence of sockpuppetry and which resulted in a block). Telling someone that if you don't stop edit warring they're going to take you to AE is not considered harassment; a frivolous AE case, however, is a significant waste of time for everyone involved, and I think the calls for a topic ban are primarily based on that and the continued attempts to insist that Nableezy has a COI with David Collier (which, despite the persistence of this demand by you and others, has yet to win any support from uninvolved editors; I would go as far as to say that I don't think Nableezy would be considered to have a COI with Collier unless they started a defamation lawsuit against Collier or otherwise took significant, off-Wikipedia action against him). I'd also add that reading through the other admin responses, I think the call for "indefinite" has less to do with them thinking that you have committed capital wiki-sins and more that they do not believe in timed bans for BATTLEGROUND behavior (I don't know that I fully agree, but I see where they're coming from based on a strict reading that bans must be preventative, not punitive; timed battleground blocks have a more punitive bent). signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Without any exaggeration, I am sincerely puzzled as to how Huldra's editing behavior and Nableezy's editing behavior is seen as basically without any fault (apparently?) but my edits have been so horrific that two admins are suggesting an indefinite ban. I'm not going to claim perfection in the very heated realm of IP discussions. I could have done better and in particular been more patient, but I don't feel I've done anything so egregious to justify a possible indefinite ban. Especially as I've never been subject to any disciplinary action before. I'm hoping you can help me understand. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daily Mail on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Radical Party (France) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Trickle-down economics on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Managing conflict of interest
Hello Rosguill,
I don't have an external relationship with the subject of my submission (Draft:Giovanni Morassutti). I have just read the preface he wrote about Method acting and found some good sources. Personally, I think it could be a good addition to Wikipedia.--Submarine00 (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Tippecanoee
Rosguill,
As for my edits on “Electoral fraud” and “Cloth face mask,” you failed to show me how I violated any policy in the edits I made. In fact, whoever preceded me in writing or editing the sections that I changed violated Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality, because they were very biased. I merely fixed their mistakes and made the articles more factual and neutral. Please do not threaten to suspend my editing privileges if you cannot clearly show how I have violated any policy that would warrant such suspension. If you are upset about article bias, please suspend whoever else wrote such biased and misleading information before me.
Thank you, Tippecanoe&TylerToo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippecanoe&TylerToo (talk • contribs) 05:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Tippecanoe&TylerToo, would you mind explaining this edit of yours, where you stated in the edit summary that you were making "minor grammatical corrections" when in fact you were systematically removing RS-backed claims that claims of electoral fraud were false? Or why you chose to replace paragraphs of seemingly fine content sourced to peer-reviewed studies at Cloth face mask with a paragraph cited to a far inferior news source, and proceeded to edit war when reverted? signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia readers should be allowed to read about a topic without receiving the leftist view of events. They get enough of that in the media. I did not claim that Trump’s claims were true or false, I left it neutral. The fact is nobody can actually prove that the claims of election fraud are indeed false. Wikipedia should stick to presenting information instead of propaganda. As for masks, they are not proven to be effective (states with more mandates have more COVID cases). And as for “inferior” sources, how can I trust that claim coming from a platform that has a banned sources list (for any source that is not liberal)? A person can cite MSNBC or CNN opinion articles as fact, but not Breitbart. Stuff like that only happens in Communist countries. I fail to see how a few liberal Wikipedia elite can monitor Wikipedia and censor out any opposing voices. Even the co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger said Wikipedia is too liberally biased, and it is becoming abundantly clear that he is correct. This is the last message I will post concerning this “issue.” I do not see why you have even made this an issue, please keep Wikipedia a truly free and neutral platform by not threatening to suspend editors you do not agree with. That is called censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippecanoe&TylerToo (talk • contribs) 04:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Tippecanoe&TylerToo, you seem to have a bit of a misconception about what neutrality means on Wikipedia. This essay explains it rather well. As far as your edits to Electoral fraud, my problem with your changes has nothing to do with the substance of the edit, but rather with the method: first you used a misleading edit summary, then you twice attempted to reinstate your edits after being contested instead of engaging in a discussion to address the suggested change. This is disruptive editing and goes against our policies, regardless of what political perspective it's coming from. I'm not giving you any further warnings. As for which sources can be cited and which cannot, you can see WP:RSP for archives of extensive discussions that Wikipedia editors have had about sources from all sides of the political spectrum, and determined based on the sources' integrity and verifiability. signed, Rosguill talk 06:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Gyyyyhh
Shut up 70.18.11.83 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid
Hi! I was doing cleanup on some random list somewhere and saw that you added an undisclosed paid tag at this diff. I was wondering why/how you came to that conclusion (genuine question)? How can one tell? Jdcooper (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Jdcooper, so there's a variety of different tells and patterns that can give away COI editing. In this case, however, I believe I added the tag as part of cleanup of Lapablo, who was blocked for UPE following a sockpuppetry investigation (IIRC) and who had made non-trivial edits to that page. I'll also note that the initial editing account is also a giveaway UPE sock: makes 10 edits, gets autoconfirmed, then drops a pre-written PR draft for a brand new article in one edit before disappearing forever. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. When is it ok to remove those tags? Jdcooper (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Jdcooper, I'd say that if you've given the article a thorough review of all its content and done a search for sources to make sure it's not missing relevant perspectives or putting undue emphasis then I'd say it's safe to remove. I generally recommend that new page reviewers not do this for articles they are reviewing, as it effectively means that you end up writing a top tier article for the UPE editors, which would be counterproductive as a systemic policy. signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Makes sense. In this particular case, the topic is nn, so I will just put it up for deletion when I get a chance. Thanks for your help! Jdcooper (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Jdcooper, I'd say that if you've given the article a thorough review of all its content and done a search for sources to make sure it's not missing relevant perspectives or putting undue emphasis then I'd say it's safe to remove. I generally recommend that new page reviewers not do this for articles they are reviewing, as it effectively means that you end up writing a top tier article for the UPE editors, which would be counterproductive as a systemic policy. signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. When is it ok to remove those tags? Jdcooper (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry 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 Wikipedia. Especially at NPP. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 22:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
Merry Christmas 2021
.jpg)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Season’s Greetings
.jpg) |
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Hi Rosguill, Have an enjoyable holiday season! Cassiopeia talk 09:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
| Happy Adminship | from the Birthday Committee |
|---|---|
  Wishing Rosguill a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 09:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC) | |
Have a happy Christmas and New Year
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Rosguill: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, JW 1961 Talk 11:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
Seasons Greetings
Hello Rosguill: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, John B123 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
A goat for you!
Cordially!
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shane McMahon on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
Arbitration
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
|
Hi Rosguill, Wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thank you for your support and great work on Wikipedia. Happy Holidays. DMySon (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC) |
Happy New Year, Rosguill!
Rosguill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year!
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
- – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Merchandise giveaway nomination
|
A token of thanks
Hi Rosguill! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
|
 |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Volodymyr Zelenskyy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:1998 Sokcho submarine incident on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
Miscellaneous
- The functionaries email list (functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Happy First Edit Day!
|
Happy First Edit Day, Rosguill, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC) |
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Redirect help requested
I am a fairly new Wikipedian, and I've been looking to solve an issue I've had that appears to be in your skillset on Wikipedia. You see, searching for "Bayou Pierre" brings up a river in Mississippi. This is in spite of the fact that it is also the name of a river in Louisiana (the page for which I wrote.) I don't know how to make Bayou Pierre into a disambiguation page. Should I copy the source text of a similar one into the redirect page and edit the content? I don't know what to do! Thanks in advance, Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mebigrouxboy, I went ahead and converted the redirect to a disambiguation page for you. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I was in the process of closing the dispute with a similar comment, and you closed it first. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, oops, sorry about that. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, no. Don't apologize. We agreed that it needed closing. Anyway, it read like a complaint of administrative abuse, and most complaints of administrative abuse at WP:ANI either are ignored, or result in the filer being blocked, and you said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have to mention this to the WMF or the Committee when threats carries on that I should be blocked. I did nothing wrong, im not a vandal or paid contributor (see my contributions) in general. The Dutcheese1996 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Dutcheese1996, I've looked over the interactions between you and MER-C and I don't see any threats. The closest thing to a threat is MER-C's comment in the DRN discussion,
you will be banned without further warning if you promote any cryptocurrency related subject. That is the price for editing in such a spam-prone topic with serious ramifications for the public
, which is a) a warning, not a threat and b) the correct thing to do, as it is important to let people know when they are engaging in behavior that can lead to being banned. If you still think you have a a valid complaint to make, you can take it to WP:ANI, ARBCOM would be premature and the WMF doesn't intervene into disputes like this. But again, it is my relatively-expert and uninvolved opinion that you're barking up the wrong tree here and would recommend that you either focus on improving the article directly (as I see you were already doing this morning) or let the matter drop. signed, Rosguill talk 16:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Dutcheese1996, I've looked over the interactions between you and MER-C and I don't see any threats. The closest thing to a threat is MER-C's comment in the DRN discussion,
- I have to mention this to the WMF or the Committee when threats carries on that I should be blocked. I did nothing wrong, im not a vandal or paid contributor (see my contributions) in general. The Dutcheese1996 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, no. Don't apologize. We agreed that it needed closing. Anyway, it read like a complaint of administrative abuse, and most complaints of administrative abuse at WP:ANI either are ignored, or result in the filer being blocked, and you said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- My intention is not to hit a WP:BOOMERANG as you suggested on the dispution ANI, when you closed. I wrote an article about a well known Benelux operated exchange with no intention to promote a company (so there are articles about Binance and Coinbase) So let’s be clear Are I welcome yet on this project or not? The Dutcheese1996 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC) BTW: WP:ANI is no option due that policy, of which led to that I should be indefinitely sitebanned from editing.
- You are more than welcome to continue contributing provided that you comply with relevant guidelines and policies and respect the consensus-based decision-making policies that govern editing here. It's worth noting guidelines for demonstrating the notability of companies are among the strictest that exist for any topic, and cryptocurrency-related topics are subject to further scrutiny because of a) the mass amount of black-hat editors we get on this topic and b) the majority of cryptocurrency-focused sources being very poor quality. You are jumping into the deep end of Wikipedia editing here, and the consequence is that your (and everyone else's) edits to this topic will be held to a very high standard. FWIW, I glanced at the sources you have since added to Draft:Bitvavo and am of the opinion that, while more reliable, they have insufficient significant coverage of Bitvavo itself to demonstrate that it meets the notability guideline for companies, so don't be surprised if that draft is declined if submitted in its current state. As an added note, WP:BOOMERANG exists so that we don't create a first-move advantage to reporting behavioral disputes; it is not an invitation to sidestep our behavioral dispute resolution procedures. My assertion, as well as Robert's similar conclusion attested above, that reporting this dispute to ANI would likely end in you facing sanctions is based on an assessment that your complaint does not include any sanctionable behavior by MER-C, and would thus be taken as a waste of everyone's time. If you'd rather find out for yourself, I'm not going to stop you, but I'm quite confident that my advice is correct here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- My intention is not to hit a WP:BOOMERANG as you suggested on the dispution ANI, when you closed. I wrote an article about a well known Benelux operated exchange with no intention to promote a company (so there are articles about Binance and Coinbase) So let’s be clear Are I welcome yet on this project or not? The Dutcheese1996 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC) BTW: WP:ANI is no option due that policy, of which led to that I should be indefinitely sitebanned from editing.
- What did you mean with: “ You are jumping into the deep end of Wikipedia editing here”. The suggestion that you said that I am a Black hat (thus a criminal) is really disgusting, You did’nt trust me so I stop with this project when you (or MER-C) said that I am an criminal. The Dutcheese1996 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I meant that you are starting to edit one of the most difficult topics to edit on this website, and did not mean to imply anything beyond that. I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions that other Wikipedia editors are out to get you when they're just trying to remind you of the ground rules here. Focus on making guideline-and-policy-compliant edits and you have nothing to worry about. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- What did you mean with: “ You are jumping into the deep end of Wikipedia editing here”. The suggestion that you said that I am a Black hat (thus a criminal) is really disgusting, You did’nt trust me so I stop with this project when you (or MER-C) said that I am an criminal. The Dutcheese1996 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Adoption
Hi. Can you adopt me?--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- 14Jenna7Caesura, what sort of editing are you interested in and/or looking for help with? signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is there some tool that shows a pop-up of the edits of others? Some tool to make editing faster? --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure I know of anything like what you're asking for for #1 and #2 is vague enough that a lot of different tools could help (or not, depending on what you're looking for). You'll probably find WP:Tools useful to look through. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is there some tool that shows a pop-up of the edits of others? Some tool to make editing faster? --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can you protect the above article from repeated vandalism? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Denisarona,
Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Thank you for reviewing all of those pages. Cheers! Surge_Elec (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your hard work in reviewing NCNR UK, InteliDey and HPC4+ articles. IMLone wolf (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC) |
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Main Page on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
New Request
Please, review this page. Thanks. - Owais Talk 13:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I generally don't do reviews on request. A new page reviewer will get to it in due time. signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This redirect was just changed to an article. You reverted a similar change in 2020, so I thought you might want to take a look. I also note that when you reverted, you overrode a 2017 RFD - I'm not sure if that was intentional. This may be a candidate for broader discussion. I removed the redirect hatnote at the old target, and added one to this article; if this new article stands as is, please review this hatnote. MB 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- MB At a glance, the new article seems to cover a distinct concept, unlike the revision I reverted as analogous to Imperial Federation. Reviewing GScholar results, it seems like the term may be notable in itself, although my impression is that the current revision insufficiently identifies Greater Britain as being a theory of discourse primarily developed by Duncan Bell, rather than simply analyzed by Bell (virtually all usage in this context that I was able to find cites Bell). Counterposed to Bell's perspective, there is the (neo-)fascist use of the term, which may perhaps be best separated from the topic. So, to restate all that in a less rambling way, it looks like we should have an article at Greater Britain, although I'm not convinced that the current framing does a proper job of presenting the degree and contexts of the term's usage. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I'll leave it to you add a tag, TP comment, or nothing else. MB 20:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
AfD comment request
Hello! Could you give your opinion for this AfD which seems to be stuck: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Family of Churches (2nd nomination)? Thanks. Veverve (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Veverve, at this point it seems headed to deletion, but I'm going to refrain from closing it or participating myself since it could potentially be read as canvassing. If more evidence for keep is found and it ends up getting another relist I'll investigate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. If you want, I have also opened this other AfD. Veverve (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Really appreciate your review
Hey Rosguill, this is Derivator2017 here, I think you know me. I am really thankful to you for reviewing my articles. It's always a pleasure to have your articles reviewed by an experienced editor. However, it apparently looks like not everyone loves seeing me on this platform. I have recently created an article, Yara International School and it was placed on AfD for the third time by the same editor under the pretext of notability, despite me providing around 70 references this time and out of which 3 to 4 sources clearly make the article eligible for existence. Since you've already reviewed dozens of my articles, I perhaps assume you see me as someone with AFG. Kindly review my article and place your opinion in the deletion discussion page, and if you think this article meets the GNG criteria, please vote to keep it. Warm regards. Derivator2017 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Derivator2017, while I appreciate the compliment and recognize that you are likely well-intentioned, the above message could be interpreted as a WP:CANVASS attempt because it is a non-neutral invitation to participate in a discussion. Consequently, I'm going to have to decline to participate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think invitation is a thing which is rarely neutral, and that's why I asked you to only vote in my favor only if the "article meets the GNG criteria", according to you. Anyways, I appreciate your reply. Thanks. Derivator2017 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
How does review process works?
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and had a question.
A page I created recently got reviewed/patrolled and is located here: [1]
However, it still shows as unreviewed at the following link: [2]
When are the noindex tags removed for patrolled pages?
Thanks Wickedwiki2 (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wickedwiki2, looking at the page logs, it doesn't look like that page was ever reviewed. What makes you think it was? signed, Rosguill talk 14:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because I had confirmation from another user with new page patrol rights at [3] Wickedwiki2 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- As they noted in that exchange, BabbaQ is not a new page reviewer; the page will be reviewed and checked off in due time, usually around ~2-5 months. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because I had confirmation from another user with new page patrol rights at [3] Wickedwiki2 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamedsuppressin around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. - The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
- The user group
Arbitration
- Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
- The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
- A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.
Blatant reverts
[2][3]. This is not the first time. Look at their history, this person blatantly revert edits without a single piece of explanation on several articles.--2409:4073:2E9B:8C13:DEB:1400:D425:AAF7 (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- As far as the edits to the Splits and Mergers article go, I was able to fix them with a history merge. For the more recent reverting at Dileep that you appear to have been involved with, it looks like various other editors are involved, and there's also some odd copyvio in the mix: at this point if you think there's need for sanctions, I would bring this to WP:ANI, as simply from looking at the page history briefly it's not clear what action is needed. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
Technical news
- Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentryanddeletedhistoryrights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928) - When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Arbitration
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Warner Bros. Discovery on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Good close
I've been closing more RfDs lately and have been kinda surprised that it's empirically the most thankless task I regularly do (colloquially and Special:Log/thanks-ly). And I've noticed that I almost never see anyone thanking admins or frequent non-admin closers on any user talkpages I watch, and when I do see it, it's usually "Thanks for saying I'm right".
So, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for this close. It went against how I'd !voted, but I agree with it, and it was the exact kind of succinct but nuanced close to a complex discussion that any closer aspires to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Tamzin, thanks! There's some irony that by far the most-thanked thing, at least that I do, is reviewing redirects, the lowest-hanging fruit administrative there is, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This was some time ago, but please note that in this case, you should have used the {{R to anchor}} tag. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Billion on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Resident Evil creature list subpages
Hi. I noticed that you closed a few RfDs at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#List of Resident Evil 1 creatures and below. There are a few subpages that should be G8 speedy-deleted: Talk:List of creatures in the Resident Evil series/Archive 1, Talk:List of creatures in the Resident Evil series/Impact, and Talk:List of creatures in the Resident Evil series/to do (search). I found nothing when searching for each of the other redirects, but double-checking wouldn't hurt if there's a tool. Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Flatscan, thanks for the heads up, taken care of. signed, Rosguill talk 14:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:REFUND request.
Hi Rosguill, can I get a WP:REFUND of David Wood (Christian apologist). I remember seeing this article previously, and looking at the two previous AfD pages, I am keen to rescue this article if I can. It seems that the most recent AfD had very little participation, and I have doubts that it was thorough enough. Could you please recreate it as a draft for me? Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 08:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Insertcleverphrasehere, you can now find the draft at Draft:David Wood (Christian apologist) signed, Rosguill talk 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
NPP
Hello I made a request to be a New Page reviewer over a week ago but had no response, I kindly ask you if you have time to review my request. Thanks Trains2050 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)