User talk:Rosguill/Archive 19

Re-create EQ3 Redirect?
Hi, I saw you deleted the redirect I'd created for EQ3 -> Palliser Furniture (apologies for not seeing the discussion in time to bring it up there, I'm not a very active user). I've updated the Palliser Furniture page to mention that EQ3 is one of Palliser's sub-brands (with an appropriate citation). Would it be appropriate to re-create the redirect? I'm not especially invested in its existence, I just wanted to help the next person who tries to look up EQ3 like I did. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughtandzero (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , with the added mention at the target it's an appropriate redirect, go ahead and recreate it. signed,Rosguill talk 19:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Admin question
(Asking you as an uninvolved admin): There was a misunderstanding with a recent requested move discussion I started in that the discussion closer (a page mover) moved the page to the wrong name after incorrectly determining there was consensus to move to this incorrect name. The mistake has been corrected after further discussion, and while I do believe the closer was acting in good faith, it makes me question whether they used sufficient judgement and discretion required of a page mover. Would it be appropriate to start a move review even if the move has now been completed correctly? What is the best way to express my concerns about this users actions and page mover rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs)
 * , if the mistake has already been corrected, then I think it depends a bit on the nature of the mistake, whether it was due to a mistake in performing the move itself or due to a misreading of consensus; if it's the former then there may be an issue with their use of the permissions, whereas if it's the latter then the issue is their further participation closing discussions. Either way, I think the first step is to talk to the editor in question on their talk page. If you still have concerns about their ability to use the permissions after you've done that, then raising the case at ANI would be the next step. All that having been said, I don't know that a single error is necessarily a basis for removal of permissions or topic-bans, unless the error is particularly egregious. signed,Rosguill talk 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The issue was a misreading of consensus that was due in part I believe to the subject matter (chemistry). My concern is that page movers are supposed to exercise discretion and focus on closing discussions where there is obvious consensus and there is little possibility for confusion. The mistake was noted on the talk page by an uninvolved user pinging the closer, and after 24 hours I placed a technical request which the original closer/mover contested, still believing they were right, even as another page mover was completing the technical request, only to move it back due to the contest. Only after further discussion on their talk page did they acknowledge the mistake and make the correct page moves. My goal is to prevent this sort of mess in the future. I will continue the discussion on that closer's talk page, and consider going to ANI only if I am unsatisfied with the results. I agree page mover rights should not be revoked based on a single instance, but how does a "pattern" become articulated if cases are not documented somehow? Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I understand that closing an RM discussion is not specifically a page mover thing, but this required a move over a redirect with history, so unlikely a non-page mover or non-admin would have closed this discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that seems reasonable. As far as the "pattern" is concerned, diffs from this issue being raised on their talk page, at RM, etc. would suffice. signed,Rosguill talk 21:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

About one editor
Hello, Rosguill. I want to ask you for help about a strange editor, AndriiDr talk. In articles Rus' people and Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia, it cancels only my edits, and almost all of them, indiscriminately. On my discussion page, he said that half of my edits were canceled not by him, but by other participants, although this is not true. At the same time, his manner of communication shows that he does not speak English so well, but uses a Google translator. I suspect that this is the editor of Gaudi9223, who is taking revenge for being blocked. Can you help? Noraskulk (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , at a glance, it looks like they're saying that both they and other editors have been reverting your edits. I don't think that I'm going to have time to investigate this any time soon, so you may want to reach out to another admin or WP:ANI. signed,Rosguill talk 15:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

you deleted my edit in the asia page
Hi,

This is Samar Hijazi and i believe you deleted my edit on the asian countries. Do you have disagreement with putting all the countries (china saudi palestine israel thailand taiwan) together?? i am seeing that this is sensitive issues for some like you, why do you disagree with my suggestion??

Samar al-hejazi (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no opinion on the content of List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia‎. I stepped in as an administrator because several editors were edit warring back and forth, which is quite disruptive and should be avoided. As the editor proposing changes, the onus is on you to win a consensus for your proposed changes on the talk page. You can encourage other editors to participate by pinging them to the discussion. If you're unable to resolve the discussion between yourselves on the talk page, next steps would be either WP:DRN or WP:RfC. It's worth noting that the current version was the result of a long RfC discussion that was closed 9 months ago: winning consensus for changes is likely to be an uphill battle for you.
 * I'm also going to leave a discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page, which provides links to pages that clarify the (stricter) behavior expected of editors editing topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. signed,Rosguill talk 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to leave a discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page, which provides links to pages that clarify the (stricter) behavior expected of editors editing topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. signed,Rosguill talk 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding why it is so big deal to you and everyone to include them together like it not make a difference to your life. Are you like supporting israeli or palestine?? like my GOD why everyone not just grow up this is a silly arguments you guys having?

Samar al-hejazi (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I already told you that I don't have a personal opinion on what the content should be, I am here to uphold the norms of how discussions proceed on Wikipedia. Once someone has objected to your changes, you need to talk it out with them. This procedure is what allows Wikipedia editors to work together on so many different difficult topics, and without it the platform would be total chaos. signed,Rosguill talk 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Ben Porter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ben Porter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ben Porter& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FalconK (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Watch
Shalom ahi. Manishma? I saw your text regarding adding Genocide Watch statement to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I don't know whether you read the statement or not, it is completely one sided statement and uses typical shablon words that Armenian Diaspora uses in all their sponsored articles. If you read forbes station that guys suggested under discussion, it also had exact same content. I don't reject the fact that there will a refugee crisis as it happened in 1991-1992 where around 800,000 Azeris were displaces from the region. If we want to be informative and unbiased we should also consider sensitive facts to be objectively addressed. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Forbes source is worthless, and I think that the current draft is skewed, if a fair WP:BOLD edit. You're within your rights to revert it, but I would suggest contesting individual claims and working to improve it rather than deadlocking. While the balance of the overall content of that section clearly reflects a pro-Armenian POV, the eye-catching claims I checked are backed by the reliable sources cited. Nevertheless, I think that the same claims could probably be presented in a more balanced manner, and that would be a constructive way to approach the issue. signed,Rosguill talk 06:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a deep knowledge about this conflict. As I mentioned in talk tap under this topic, the statement includes causes as a fact as well, claiming extermination of armenian population. Just one example from today, Armenians under 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict topic tries to draw picture that Azerbaijan side is intended to conduct ethnic cleaning but they want to hide the fact that they already conducted it in 1990-1992 war by driving 800,000 local residents from the Nagorno-Karabakh area including 7 adjacent territories that is out of dispute. The claims by Armenian side about possible ethnic cleaning of area should be described as potential act of revanchism, if this will happen. I am looking forward to collaborate in order to issue more balanced and constructive text.Mirhasanov (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Armatura (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup after me?
Hi Rosguill, thanks for patrolling Jean-Baptiste François Xavier Cousin De Grainville‎. I realized seeing it on my watchlist that I screwed up: it should be a lowercase "de", not uppercase, and there probably isn't reason for keeping them both. Can you move it without leaving a redirect (assuming that's correct)? (I lack the perm but if it should be moved leaving a redirect behind let me know and I can do that myself.) Thanks, Lev!vich 17:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 18:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Help
Hi. Created an article - Draft:Dmitry Borisovich Volkov. During the review, I was made a comment about the style of advertising. It is difficult for me to correct the article, as I do not know English well. On the forum, I was advised to contact a participant who knows Russian and English well. I really ask for your help in adjusting the advertising style of the article. You are the last chance to help. I will be very grateful to you !!! Thank you very much. 95.153.132.83 (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't commit the time to rewrite the article. Glancing at it quickly, I think that one thing you could do to help make a case for moving it to mainspace would be to identify the WP:THREE best sources that the article cites, and ask the AfC reviewer if they would be willing to accept to mainspace and add a POV-tag to the article on that basis. signed,Rosguill talk 16:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Time to close Parasite (film) move review
Hello. Is it now time to close Move_review/Log/2020_September? No new responses in over half a month. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't like closing discussions that I've already closed meta-discussions for, but I do agree that it's time to close this one. I'll list it at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. signed,Rosguill talk 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my redirects!
I thank you so much for reviewing my redirects I created! I really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoomBoxBuddy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg John M Wolfson
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Yunshui

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Anarchyte
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Yunshui

Guideline and policy news
 * Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news
 * Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
 * Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
 * Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration
 * The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
 * The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous
 * A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Article - Do we have an NPOV on the subject of massacres?
Hi. Wanted to write to you in relation to the question of massacres in the 2020 NK Conflict Article. I believe we are veering off the NPOV. To demonstrate what I mean see here the three mentions of the Khojaly massacre:

Official Statement>Azerbaijan:On 29 September, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, spoke about Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Aliyev stated that Armenian control of the area and aggression had led to the destruction of infrastructure and mosques, caused the Khojaly massacre, and resulted in cultural genocide, insulting the Muslim world and being tantamount to state-backed Islamophobia and anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. '''Source: Azerbaijan State News Agency

Official Statement>Azerbaijan:The next day, Azerbaijani authorities stated that Armenia was conducting an act of genocide, emphasizing the Khojaly massacre. Source: APA.az which is the Azeri Press Agency

International Reactions>Humanitarian Organizations:While for Azerbaijanis, GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis, erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages, and denial of war crimes such as the Khojaly massacre and the current shelling of Azerbaijani civilians. Source: GenocideWatch

Do you think these are warranted and reliably sourced citations of a complex historical event? on the other hand, I find it difficult to understand why you are pushing back on including three different massacres of Armenians in the background section that as per very reliable sources, are thought to have precipitated this conflict. I see you brushed off my concerns about mentioning Khojaly - again tragic as it is - that happened at the end of a conflict, from sources that clearly have a POV to push - at least the first two. There are a few controversies around that massacre, including as Thomas de Waal mentions the question whether Armenians forces warned civilians to leave the city, and the partial Azerbaijan OMON responsibility of the tragedy. See this quote from Thomas de Waal's Black Garden, P172

'''A Khojali survivor, Salman Abasov, complained later:

"Several days before the events of the tragedy the Armenians told us several times over the radio that they would capture the town and demanded that we leave it. For a long time helicopters flew into Khojali and it wasn’t clear if anyone thought about our fate, took an interest in us."'''

Don't you think there should at least be qualifications to be mentioned in the article, if we are to include the event?

On the other hand, the sources mentioning Sumgait, Baku and Kirovabad pogroms as precipitating the conflict are not Armenians sources, dot AM websites, opinion pieces or blog posts but The Economist, Los Angeles Times, Thomas de Waal and Laurence Broers the last two being acknowledged authorities on this conflict.

Now, I understand you are the admin of this page, and I respect that. However, are there other admins that I could ask to give their feedback here? I see certain users - who I believe share a POV on this conflict - always tag you as to go-to admin for them on this page, and I would like to get some other feedback as well please. Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , At a glance I think that you're probably right about the mentions of Khojaly Massacre being undue, particularly in the context of the AZ government statements. I can't really devote much time to this issue right now, this is a really busy time for me. I'm not the admin of this page, that's not how adminship works. I'm honestly not sure why primarily Azerbaijan-POV editors tag me. signed,Rosguill talk 02:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Arameans
Hey Rosguill,

I saw that you closed the RFC on the page: Arameans, however you did not draw a clear line about the conclusion. (Or I maybe just didn't get it right)

As you stated ''There is consensus that the status quo is inadequate in its presentation of overlapping and contentious terms for Arameans and related ethnoreligious groups, and a rough consensus for splitting between the ancient usage and modern ethnoreligious groups. There is no clarity, however, on where eactly to draw the line; renaming this article, Assyrian people and/or other related articles has also been suggested as a possible component of a solution.''

I would recommend the page Arameans to be about the modern group and revert back to this edit [] that also was protected by user:MelanieN. Even tho the edit got reverted by an biased user that was involved in the RFC. Next a page about the History of the Arameans will be created. Conclusion: the pages doesn't need to be renamed, because there will be splitted pages about the ancient and modern group. Merging the page into Assyrian people is not an option since these people do differ from eachother in history, culture, organisations.

I would like to hear if you agree on this.

Best regards and stay safe! Kikkererwtje (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that the discussion about article scope needs to be had on the article's talk page. I don't think that the revision protected by MelanieN represents the status quo ante for this dispute, which appears to stretch back to June 2020. signed,Rosguill talk 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well as I stated, the pages need to be splitted into a page about the modern people and a page about the history of them. The page protected by MelanieN does not represent the status quo ante for this dispute indeed, but it's a text that was written about the modern nation, that was where the whole discussion was going about. So again I recommend to revert the edit back to the protected version of MelanieN. Afterwards an apart page about these people their history can be created.


 * It's quite worthless to discuss the scope of the article on it's talkpage as the whole RFC was going about whether to or whether not to split two pages about the ancient and modern people. So most probably the whole discussion will start once again while already 2 RFC's took place on the talkpage.


 * For now we need to make a decision to solve this problem and the only way to solve it is that the page Arameans will go about the modern people and a page named History of the Arameans will go about the ancient history of these people.


 * Best regards :) Kikkererwtje (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're asking me to do something outside of my remit as the discussion closer. I am not here to dictate an outcome but rather to establish what the discussion's outcome was, which in this case was no consensus. In the event of no consensus, we revert back to the status quo ante with only rare exceptions. The task at hand for editors working on that page is to figure out how to draw the lines between these overlapping categories, and the place to have that discussion is at its talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 03:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar Quote
"Usually when I come across an article about a fictional character or plot element in the back of the new pages queue, it's a poorly-sourced article of dubious notability being edit-warred back into existence."


 * I love this quote. It also really comes down to Fancruft that has not that much evidence, but they win the debate because there is too many of them to prove otherwise.   Le Panini  Talk 16:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the compliment, although in my experience I feel like I generally don't see pro-fancruft editors win debates at AfD (unlike say, football fans), they just exhaust other editors' goodwill by endlessly recreating articles about obscure Tom & Jerry shorts. signed,Rosguill talk 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have (accidentally) unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm DarkGlow. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, President of the First Republic of Vietnam, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 20:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this, I didn't even notice I did this until now! I think we were both reviewing old redirects and I must have clicked one that you'd reviewed, and accidentally clicked unreview rather than review. Sorry again! – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 21:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries, I immediately assumed this was the case when I saw the notification. signed,Rosguill talk 21:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I have you, I'm not sure if this is a typical area of Wiki you involve yourself in, but myself and two editors have been looking to get Confetti (Little Mix album) deleted so that I can review and move Draft:Confetti (Little Mix album) moved into mainspace. We have asked the protecting admin of the page, but they have not been helpful. Would you be able to help out? – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 21:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
Sorry to bother you again. I have high suspects over lot of newcomer accounts on both sides being sockpuppets. But have no idea where to begin? Any opinion? Beshogur (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's essentially two courses of action you can take. One is, if you have reason to believe that the sockpuppets are connected to a specific account, file a case at WP:SPI. Otherwise, tag relevant discussions with not a vote and leave it to the closer to take care of. If I get some free time, I'll try to go through and investigate/tag possible SPAs. signed,Rosguill talk 18:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Very thankful! Beshogur (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Durga Hindu Mythology
I saw you made a revert quoting consensus. Did you have a chance to read my points on the talk page? Durga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basavaraj Patel (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes I did. The infobox should only be used as an unambiguous summary of the article's key points. Elements of Durga in mythology that are not persistent across major relevant religious denominations probably don't belong in it. Your argument about Jesus in the Quran is not particularly persuasive as there is nothing in the infobox at Jesus that contradicts Islamic theology's perspective. signed,Rosguill talk 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. I request you to take a relook at the issue and the references(no 2, no 16) because this one particular interpretation would lead to so many other interpretations and edits across many pages. The mentions of Durga in Vaishnav literature is as minimal as it can get. The entire article Durga sources mythology from two textbooks Devi Mahatmya and Devi Bagavata Purana which are written by non Vaishnavs. The references(no 2, no 16) of Vaishnav sect literature being listed for the dispute words Durga as embodiment of Lakshmi and Shiva as embodiment of Vishnu(Krishna). Durga-Shiva and Lakshmi-Vishnu are the couples in Indian mythology. If you are short on time, i have copied text from those references onto the talk page.Basavaraj Patel (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , based on a review of Google Scholar results, that seems like a failing of the article's composition, not necessarily a reflection of actual existing coverage:
 * "Vaishnavism" "Durga" returns 1,320 results
 * "Shaktism" "Durga" returns 452 results
 * "Shaivism" "Durga" returns 725 results
 * "Smartism" "Durga" returns 24 results
 * Based on these results, I don't think we have a basis for privileging the Shaktist perspective in the infobox. signed,Rosguill talk 21:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to see this change. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's annoying, but it seems like the previous stable status quo did include a consort parameter in the infobox, and I'd hazard to say that there's currently no consensus in the talk page. This will likely need to be resolved via RfC, or maybe DRN. signed,Rosguill talk 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * True, the stable version did include a consort. That is also the typical view of the masses it seems. I'm rather neutral in this matter. Let's see what happens in the discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've requested at WP:DRN for resolving the issue, here's the link, Thank you - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've requested at WP:DRN for resolving the issue, here's the link, Thank you - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
Hello. Since many editors have conflicts of interest, it think it's not acceptable to discuss other users' opinion this way and make it the voice of Wikipedia, why we have references? According to the rules and policies of Wikipedia, we must keep POV in the articles. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure why you're telling me this, much less on my user talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 22:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you are the only known from admins who is following this talk page and certain users tagging you constantly. If you know other admins interested and following this topic as well, please, share their user names. Also, if it's not your talk page, where do you suggest to contact you, when I want to discuss with you. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , here is the place to contact me, I just wasn't sure what issue you were trying to address with the first message you left, as you made a vague statement that is in line with Wikipedia policy without identifying how it's connected to any specific dispute. Historically, has been active in Armenia–Azerbaijan articles, but my understanding they've recently stepped back from working on topics under discretionary sanctions due to unrelated disputes. Other than that, I'm not aware of any admins that have been active in this subject in particular; depending on the issue at hand, you may find it useful to reach out to an admin that's active elsewhere, but I would suggest coming with an actual question or issue, not just a vague call to action. Alternatively, if there's a specific task you need completed you can add it to a backlog. signed,Rosguill talk 18:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it wasn't clear, I thought that the title of this section would clarify which topic I am talking about. Also, a user on a page of English Wikipedia wrote the following:
 * Rosguill seems to agree with me on the term occupied.
 * I think we should not draw such conclusions, especially since we have to keep neutrality, not one-sidedness. It's about a self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh who has on its control other districts apart from the claimed ones. So using "occupied" with "Nagorno-Karabakh" is definitely Turkish-Azerbaijani POV. Thank you for you time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus
I noticed that you restored a struck-off message in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus -. Please note that the consensus was struck off not because of the currently overturned discussion, but a previous one - it was struck off by Barkeep49 who noted that the previous discussion did not yielded a consensus -, so the claim of consensus should not have been made. The current discussion is trying to establish a consensus on that issue, but since it is overturned, there is still as yet no consensus, and it would be wrong to claim that there is one. I believe that the restoration of this claim of consensus is mistaken, but attempt to undo it has been reverted. If, however, it is not an error and you did think that there is a consensus, I would be interested to know the reason. Hzh (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I misunderstood the original situation: I should not have unstruck the message but should have just removed the addendum about the follow up discussion having been closed as consensus against the image. I'll address the issue now. signed,Rosguill talk 23:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about a redirect
Hello, I was hoping to ask you a question: Would the redirect at Draft:Turning point of World War II be a CSD G6 as a redirect from Drafts to Article space? Thank you for your time,  // Timothy ::  talk  05:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suppose that it could be deleted under G6 as it serves no purpose (no meaningful incoming links, no history of use), but there also isn't much of a reason to bother deleting it either. You may be confusing this case a bit with redirects from mainspace to draftspace, which are covered by CSD R2. Those are problematic because we don't want to unwittingly send readers from articles to drafts, as the entire point of drafts is that they're out of public view. signed,Rosguill talk 05:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarity, no reason to create work if none is needed.  // Timothy ::  talk  05:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

N A
Hello. Navid Abdolmaleki is an amateur and unknown athlete in Iran, and him page has been quickly removed from the Persian Wikipedia several times ( https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/نوید_عبدالملکی ). The medals section also contains fake information and he does not have these medals, Even if it is real, it should be borne in mind that these medals have no value in the world of karate. There are many liars in Iran who introduce themselves as athletes and world and Asian champions! And they make pages on Wikipedia and deceive people. Abdolmaleki has never been a member of the Iranian national karate team and no one knows him except his family and friends. MohammadJarrari (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , start an AfD discussion. Speedy deletion is just for cases where the case for deletion is totally obvious to any editor looking at the page (e.g. an article that just says Bob is my teacher. Bob is great). As your case against this article relies on an understanding of karate and a careful review of the sources cited, it should go through AfD. signed,Rosguill talk 18:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you. MohammadJarrari (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Status of Republic of Artsakh
Hello. In my opinion, the status of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh article is incorrect. If the state does not recognize it, the country to which it belongs must also be written in its status. For example, unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not like Arsakh in the article. Arsakh's status was written by three non-UN member states. Sorry, is this important? Does it matter? However, they are unrecognized separatist organizations. Even four countries have recognized the independence of those separatist organizations. But Arsakh was not recognized by any state. Excuse me, why isn't the Republic of Artsakh article the same as the 3 unrecognized states article? Don't you think this is a double standard? Sword313 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with the answer that EdJohnston gave you already . At this point, you could consider making an edit request at Republic of Artsakh. signed,Rosguill talk 18:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Getting rid of the POV tag on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
Hi Rosguill, what would your take on this be? In your experience, is there likely to be any plausible way of resolving this POV tag? It looks unsubstantiated to me (it's a long, untidy article, so there'll be plenty of bits that need cleaning up, but as a whole it doesn't lean strongly in favour of either side) and the linked section is a malformed RfC which is unlikely to get resolved any time soon (there's a decent chance it'll be prematurely closed) and doesn't actually address a NPOV issue (one side doesn't want to drop the stick until every reference to "disputed" Nagorno-Karabakh is changed to "occupied"). Or in these situations is the only option to wait it out, with the POV tag sitting unaddressed, and probably undeserved, for several months until the editors thin out? I fear it's the latter case, but I just wondered in case you think there are practical steps that could be taken to get this resolved more quickly, while there are still a high volume of views. Cheers, Jr8825  •  Talk  20:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , at a glance, I think that the two ways out would be to either 1) try to start a new discussion arguing that the template is unnecessary, regardless of whether there are a few issues unresolved here or there or 2) appeal to a fully uninvolved admin to intercede at AN. This is unfortunately a very busy month for me so I can't commit to being much of a help beyond this advice. signed,Rosguill talk 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll try and give the article a proper comb through next week, and then probably take it to AN and see if anyone there is able to help. As many of the regular editors are emotionally involved in the topic I doubt much headway would be made going through the talk page. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding Armtura's actions that you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Armatura. Thank you. — Mirhasanov (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Busy
Have you been working in the Covidarium? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have not, dankn gott, the extent of my contribution to fighting covid has been taking on more domestic work for my partner who is on the front lines so to speak. My busy-ness this month has been a product of a bunch of unrelated obligations that all piled up on me. If all goes well I'll be back to normal come mid-December. But until then my Wikipedia contributions will probably be limited to keeping the NPP redirect queue in check and not much more than that. signed,Rosguill talk 21:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maddening, isn't it. Looks like I escaped in a nick of time. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Malankara Metropolitans
Big ask, so feel free to say no, but could you look at List of Malankara Metropolitans and see if you can help the two editors come to some kind of agreement, or at least an understanding of WP:EW? While edit warring blocks are on the table, I don't think they'll actually fix anything, but I also don't have the emotional bandwidth right now to wade through that mess and avoid making it worse. I saw you volunteer at DRN and thought you might be a good person to ask to step in, but if you're not able or willing to mediate that feel free to handle it however or just ignore it entirely. Thanks, and I hope you're keeping well! — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate the request, although I'm spread a bit thin at the moment outside of Wikipedia. There's a chance I'll have time tomorrow, if not I probably won't be able to look at this before Tuesday. signed,Rosguill talk 07:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Closure
I am reading through the discussion at Talk:Armenian-controlled_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh and (also Requested moves/Closing instructions) and would like to close it. I'm not an admin and I also see that you indicated your intention to close it. May I close it? VR talk 02:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , go for it, my statement of intent was more to placate the NK conflict regulars that someone will get around to closing the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 07:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just closed that discussion...only to realize that I can't move the article because it is move protected. So I filed it as an uncotested technical move request here per Requested_moves/Closing_instructions (Editors are permitted to close the discussion and file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion.) If you notice anything improper please let me know.VR talk 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , looks good at a glance, thanks for taking the initiative on this. signed,Rosguill talk 21:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

NPP/School application
Hello there. I came here to ask if you would be interested in being my NPP school mentor. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 21:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm unfortunately swamped this week and can't commit right now. If you haven't found a mentor by the second week of December or so I can look into taking you on as a student. signed,Rosguill talk 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)
Two users reverted my edit, one calling it "nonsense", other says it is the "last warning" although I never had a warning by him or by other user on that article. Relevant diffs:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_(Iran)&diff=990128902&oldid=990050481
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_(Iran)&diff=990131141&oldid=990130477

Second user says: "Azerbaijani" has nothing to do here, last warning. Isn't that lying. And do you see any disruptive editing here? I changed the language to south Azeri instead of northern version, and added category for Azerbaijani irredentism, while the article mentions irredentism. Could you please say your opinions? See relevant talk. Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't have time to look into this this week unfortunately, you're probably best off looking for help elsewhere if you want anything to happen before mid-December. signed,Rosguill talk 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Divisione Italia
Ciao: in history there were various [Divisione Italia], including those formed by emigrants in South America. Moreover, Italian fighters have massacred each other by themself in Italy and everywhere across the past centuries in world's history: I renamed a red link. No problem and regards.--Passando (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tim Cooper (academic)
I can confirm that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits on the wiki page headed Tim Cooper (academic). Greenthc57 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , this disclosure should go on your talk page, not mine, or no one else will see it. Also, please clarify as to whether you have any other connection to Tim Cooper or his associates. signed,Rosguill talk 21:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - I'm a novice at editing wiki and put it on both of our talk pages. I am Tim Cooper and my only edits were factual corrections to the draft, which was written by someone who has in the past been employed by my university.Greenthc57 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok, we still consider that to be a conflict of interest. Please follow the instructions at WP:COIDISCLOSE. Are you aware of any other accounts affiliated with your university that may have worked on the article? signed,Rosguill talk 15:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed the COI on the relevant Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tim_Cooper_(academic) Greenthc57 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC) The person who originated this page was at the time an employee at Nottingham Trent University. This is stated clearly by Matt Shapley. Greenthc57 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The entry still has the banner 'This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. (October 2020).' What needs to happen for this to be removed?Greenthc57 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's still an editor that made significant contributions to the article that has not responded properly to requests for disclosure. signed,Rosguill talk 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The only editor with whom I've had recent contact says that he has informed you that he's a university employee. I thought he had done that already. On the matter of notability, there will be some further evidence in a UK Government report on eletronic waste published tomorrow. Unfortunately, previous third party references to notability on the page have been removed and the link for a couple that remain no longer work. I could correct the latter, but you advised me not to edit the page. Greenthc57 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can request that other editors make changes to the page using Template:Request edit (follow that link for the documentation) at Talk:Tim Cooper (academic). The last editor I was suspicious about just posted a disclosure, so I've swapped the undisclosed paid with coi signed,Rosguill talk 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

NPR
Hi Rosguill, I seem to recall that you were open to granting me NPR or at least another trial. Would that be possible? I'd ask at perm but I never fail to create drama there. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , in principle I would be willing to look into it but right now is a really busy time for me so I can't promise that I'll be able to get to it anytime soon. I would suggest you ask at perm, I'm not really sure what would cause drama there. signed,Rosguill talk 03:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for responding. I've now asked at Perm. Zindor (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Teqvoly moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Teqvoly, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , not sure why the script decided that I should get this notification, as I nominated the redirect for RfD but did not make any further edits. You may want to notify editors more involved in editing it. signed,Rosguill talk 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you check?
Could you check Articles for deletion/MetaMask? It does not look like it's close to a consensus. Thanks, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , were you just looking for someone to close the discussion or was there something specific that you thought needed looking into? signed,Rosguill talk 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does not look to be a clear consensus so if you want you can close it as a no consensus or whatever you want. I was asked to add my comment on the afd and did it, but it looks just like a mess. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok. I may take a look if I get a chance today, but generally the AfD-closure backlog is well-managed so I would expect that someone else may get to it soon regardless. signed,Rosguill talk 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)