User talk:Rosguill/Archive 32

NPP Award for 2019
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!
As I have once again seen you review a page of mine (in this case a redirect Institutiones Gai), I just wanted to send this goat to you as a token of appreciation for your valuable (but often unrecognized) work!

WatkynBassett (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 

Question: Behavioral evidences
I have some things I don't understand so I ask you. What did you mean by "I'd recommend that both Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter#09_August_2022 and this discussion be closed as behavioral matches ". Are you telling you can block everyone without needing to know if all three of our IP addresses are connected? I really hope that is not the case because than all it takes is making some assumptions.

Behavioral evidence: errant spaces with their question marks (Defending myself) I chose this because is easy and takes little time to do. I can provide more evidence but it will take up a lot of blank spaces. Hunan201p said this: "Ghizz Archus and Vamlos/DerekHistorian always add a number of errant spaces with their question marks" Rossguill thinks my behavior matches Ghizz Archus. Everyone can see Ghizz made his last post from his last date which is 12:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC). Everyone can see he always makes spaces between his sentences and question marks. My question marks are always joined with my sentences.today and yesterday and if your still not satisfied look at my yesterday discussion with Quishufang at the bottom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qiushufang. All the examples were before Ghizz. Now you can't say I displayed a similar writing style to Ghizz and the others.

I really hope everything is fair.82.36.220.78 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The place to plead your case is at the sockpuppet investigation page, not here. signed,Rosguill talk 22:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. I seek your knowledge and guidance on how wikipedia SPI works. Can Shinoshijak, Ghizz and myself be blocked just by some behavioral matches or does it take a Check User to see if all three of our IP are connected with behavioral matches. I truly don't know about Ghizz Archus and Shinoshijak but is extremely unfair for me to be blocked when I have nothing to do with them. That is why I am requesting IP check.82.36.220.78 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Çok zor başka dilde kendin kılık değiştir, her zaman aynı görünmezı duvarlar çarpacaksın. signed,Rosguill talk 23:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that language. As a admin, isn't it your job to answer questions to confused editors?
 * Do I need to ask another admin?82.36.220.78 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Steven Beseau&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Maddie Ziegler&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Isabelle Belato · Whpq
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Atama · Astronautics~enwiki · Athaenara · Eddie891 · GraemeL · Marianocecowski · Natalya · Pratyeka · SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs · Firefly
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DGG

Guideline and policy news
 * The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
 * An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
 * The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
 * The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections.  and  are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
 * You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
 * Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like or.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment
You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Please remove my reviewer rights. Some people found problems with my reviews, and I would like to go to NPP school to gain more experience. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 14:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are you available for another student for NPP? My time zone is also US-Pacific. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I could take you on as a student (my time zone isn't PDT anymore, but honestly the time zone doesn't really matter IMO). What in particular were the concerns raised by other editors, and/or what were you hoping to work on? signed,Rosguill talk 17:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a peer-review on the NPP Discord server, and a few reviewers noticed that I was placing some incorrect taggings. I would like to work on that and a few other basic skills just to make sure that I am doing everything correctly. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, could you be more precise as to what is meant by "incorrect taggings"? Is that about template use (which templates?) or deletion-tagging? As for the other basic skills, did you have specifics in mind or would you just like the full course (we can always skip through parts where you are not having any trouble). signed,Rosguill talk 17:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly just maintenance taggings and not deletion taggings. I would like to focus on that, but the full course could be a good brush-up. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, feel free to start at User:Rosguill/CollectiveSolidarity NPPSCHOOL whenever you're ready. signed,Rosguill talk 18:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2018
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Clarifications please...for neuro-symbolic AI page, what would you like improved?
Hi, Rosguill, I started a new page on neuro-symbolic AI, and received a request, but was unclear as to what needed to be addressed as it mentions grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and spelling. Could you please tell me what to address?

In the meantime, I will simplify some of the sentences to enhance readability, but I am just guessing at this point as to what you are looking for in a new page that I am lacking. Thanks!

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , the first thing that jumps out at me is that most of the article is written in bulletpoint format, rather than prose style. There's also an external link in the lead that should be moved somewhere more appropriate (WP:EL). signed,Rosguill talk 02:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Rosguill,
 * Thanks, I see what you mean. What I'll do for now is move the external link to a History section along with the sentence before. I'll have to add more detail after I finish my current work on the Symbolic AI article.
 * Once it looks ready for prime time, how would I have it reviewed to -- when it is ready -- remove the copy edit template?
 * Veritas Aeterna (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a minor enough issue that I wouldn't have any problems with you fixing it and removing the tag when you think you're done (unlike say, neutrality concerns, where I may have significant doubts about the initial editor's willingness to write neutrally). If you want to me to do a quick check when you've made improvements, feel free to ping me. signed,Rosguill talk 21:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please review the article Finlit.uz
Hello Rosguill,

I kindly ask you to suggest me the shortcomings of the article created by me so I can update it.

Thank you Lostinniagarafalls (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Janessa


The article Janessa has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "non notable person"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Avenida de Alberto Alcocer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chamartín.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Dodge Avenger Concept
Hi Rosguill! I was going through a list of potential cut-n-paste moves, which contains Dodge Avenger Concept, a page you deleted. Was this the content of the page before it was BLAR'd? If so, would you please be able to perform a WP:HISTMERGE to Dodge Avenger? Thanks! HouseBlastertalk 00:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately a history merge is not possible due to overlapping edit histories. I've gone ahead and provided text attribution in a null edit summary at Dodge Avenger. signed,Rosguill talk 01:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RFD relisting
Hey! I noticed that you relisted the RFD for "Stanley (cars)" stating that there isn't an agreement as to which section of the article to retarget to. I actually disagree with that assessment since the disambig page was cleaned up and the section that was originally proposed to retarget the redirect to was changed to a different name. So essentially it's the same section but a different name. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, my bad, I've now closed it accordingly. signed,Rosguill talk 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's alright. Glad I noticed the mistake. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Lucia field
I just need help putting a source in the Article Jena   (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure what exactly you want help with. You should go ask at the teahouse, which is our internal help forum. signed,Rosguill talk 01:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

religion in egypt edit war
I asked for a consensus which the user disagreed on the talk page with and now they are edit warring what shpuld I do should I leave it? LionAjk (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the article's talk page. Next time something like this happens, you should ask for an intervention at WP:AN3 if you are re-reverted after your first revert. signed,Rosguill talk 18:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Retitle of Christianization of the Roman Empire (Historiography)
Hello, I was just notified that you had retitled an article I worked on. While there are plenty of articles that are titled Historiography of..., there are also articles with "Historiography" following such as Dark Ages (Historiography), Ethiopian historiography and others. IMP, this retitling makes the article harder to find, less accessible, and seems to limit the focus to spread alone when the article covers much more than that. I did not revert this change because I respect your input, but I do strongly disagree with this move. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note--I think concerns about it being harder to find are moot because the old title still works as a redirect, but am open to the arguments based on scope or pre-existing title conventions. I imagine that somewhere in the MOS there's relevant guidance? signed,Rosguill talk 18:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll go look. Thanx for this, and for all the work you do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (let me know if you'd rather I skip the ping) Looking at the two examples you note, Dark Ages (historiography) is about the historiographic lens of referring to post-Roman, pre-Medieval Europe as "the Dark Ages"; this seems different to me than Christianization of the Roman Empire (Historiography), as the scope of the latter is differing views of the historiography of the relevant time period, rather than a single lens which is itself the subject at Dark Ages (historiography). Ethiopian historiography, meanwhile, doesn't use a parenthetical thanks to Ethiopia having a readily-available adjectival form. signed,Rosguill talk 18:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do ping! It helps! Okay, so, you are saying that because it is a discussion of differing views, rather than a single view, that term should be first in the title? If that's so, then the rest of this is moot.
 * I did find this in the MOS:
 * If it's the parenthesis that seems objectionable, I also found this:
 * The "optimal title" is the question isn't it? The new one's awfully long. Well, you clearly have much more experience than I. If you are technically correct then I will accept your decision - whether I like it or not! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant to ask, does this need disambiguation? Are there other article with this title? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , no there aren't, although I had assumed there were when I moved the page. I think that the old title of Christianization of the Roman Empire would also be fine as a title, as the article is ultimately just trying to provide a historical account of the historical phenomenon in question, and simply accounts for the fact that RS describe divergent approaches to chronicling a period. In theory, we could write one article about the history of Christianization, and another about the history of writing the history of Christianization, in which case the latter would clearly be a "Historiography of" article. signed,Rosguill talk 19:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hah! In theory we could write that article, but I guarantee lots of abuse for doing it!  This one was originally titled Christianization of the Roman Empire but when I nominated it for a GA review, it was quick-failed for being historiographical. I tried to explain that all the "history" on this topic is actually historiography, but it just upset them even more, so I had to drop it. Since they were right, it is historiography, I added that in the title in parenthesis, not for disambiguation, but so there would be no more misunderstanding and distress over what this dadgum article, (which has given me more grief than any other I have ever worked on), actually contains. The original title is still a valid choice, and the short description helps, but I am constantly waiting for someone else to come along and beat me about the head and shoulders over the content of this article. Scholarship has changed. Not my fault! It needs to be reflected in WP content though - whether anyone likes it or not!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I think that if we want to keep "Historiography" in the title, it should not be in the disambiguator IMV, so either Historiography of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire or Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire seem like the best options; I hadn't intended to modify the scope by swapping "Christianization" for "spread of Christianity", the latter just seemed like a more natural phrase (but if Christianization is a common term of art for the period, it should be used). signed,Rosguill talk 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, well if my opinion matters, which it does seem here like you do care about others, which I am grateful for, then I vote for Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire, and I thank you. There is actually an article titled "Spread of..." and it is limited to the Roman empire - which it shouldn't be with that title - so I guess it's possible we would run into problems going that way. Should it be historiographies? Plural? Since it isn't one view like Dark ages? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think singular is fine, since "Historiography of X" would refer to the whole sum of historical approaches for X. I'll go ahead and move it to the title you're suggesting. signed,Rosguill talk 23:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to bother you again. I clicked on Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire in my watchlist and wikidata said the page doesn't exist. I must be missing something! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I just clicked the link above without issue, not sure what's going on on your end. signed,Rosguill talk 16:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it's something different because it's wikidata and not wikipedia. Does that matter? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * hm, yeah I'm not really familiar with Wikidata beyond fixing interlanguage links. signed,Rosguill talk 02:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Rosguill Help! Someone came along and made a title change removing historiography with no discussion or reason given in the edit summary and it has now created a loop that won't let me undo it! It says an administrator can fix it. Can you help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! The other editor has agreed to leave it as is until they are finished with their changes and we see where we are. He points out that we now have an article on the historiography of the CofRE w/o an article on the history of it. It's a just criticism and he has made this one more historical, but it is still heavily historiographical and I cannot see how to separate it out. I did notice there are now multiple redirects - is there any way to clean that up? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , if the redirects are all pointing to the same page we can just leave them be. Ones from unconventional titles could be deleted, but unless any of them actively make it more difficult to find another article it's a non-issue. signed,Rosguill talk 20:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay! They go back and forth pointing to each other in sequence, but if that's okay, then I am too. Thank you for explaining that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , Circular redirects aren't good. At this point, everything related to this article should point to the current article Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire signed,Rosguill talk 22:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems as if it has miraculously healed itself now! I suspect human action.  Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal
Hi. Could you please have a look at my appeal here: ? Thank you. Grand master  18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Conditions for invoking BLP against criticism of dubious sources
Hello, Rosguill. First of all, thank you for your intervention at the RSN regarding Xhufi. I would like to ask, considering your comment here, do you mind giving me some insight on when BLP can be invoked and when it is safe to describe a source for their extremist views? I will really appreciate some insight to the related question posted at the Teahouse. , if you don't mind. My question at the teahouse may appear unecessarily unclear and confusing, but I admit I am abit confused myself. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , my understanding of the issue at RSN was that BLP was invoked around two statements: Khirurg's description of Xhufi's writing in the Kosovo paper Zerikosoves (point #6), and Khirurg's assertion that Xhufi described Albanian internment camps as "not bad" (point #8). In the case of the former, this is just Khirurg's assessment of Xhufi's writing, and is not directly a claim about Xhufi's character. In the case of the latter, while Alltan has described how Khirurg's assertion is misleading out of context, Khirurg's literal statement is factually correct. While I think there's room to hold that Khirurg's comments in either situation (and moreso for the latter) are bad form or weak arguments, I don't see them as BLP violations. signed,Rosguill talk 18:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thank you! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Benjamin Banneker&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New Page Feed - Redirect loading problem
Hi Rosguill, i was wondering if you've faced this problem lately? If you do face it, please use the date filters to move on to the next day's redirects, and ping Novem Linguae and me, so that we can debug it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't come across it recently. Last time I came across a similar issue I followed up with the redirect creator and they (and another editor) were unable to reproduce the bug, suggesting it was a client-side issue on my end. signed,Rosguill talk 14:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi dear
I’m his assistant situation in Irans is very horrible he’s been jailed and now everyhthing is so heavy can you please esit for me v i’m nit sure how to do it ! Please Xxmadamex (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , please see the instructions at WP:PAID for how to disclose your status as a paid editor. signed,Rosguill talk 22:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Page protection request
Hello I believe that this 2 new ip [],[] are the same person who continue to post unsourced and biased edits and reverts on Karađorđe page. Can you please protect the page ? Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:46 02.May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:51 02.May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg ScottishFinnishRadish
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Staxringold
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
 * Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
 * Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news
 * The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
 * A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
 * The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous
 * An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
 * Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
 * You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
 * An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
 * Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Verdis
Hi Rosguill, I'd like to ask if you could take part in the AfD on Verdis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Verdis_(2nd_nomination)#Verdis

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Eddie891 · Euryalus · TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex.muller · Excirial · RedWordSmith · Ron Ritzman · TheresNoTime · Stephen

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

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
 * The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
 * An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news
 * A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget.

Arbitration
 * Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
 * The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
 * The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
 * The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
 * A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous
 * Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add  to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

reality shifting
please do an article about it 2A03:2880:30FF:78:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Hi Rosguill, I noticed this online link. This might result in more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. Google translate: ""The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."

Another link: Google translate: "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes." Google translate of one of the comments: "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred" - LouisAragon (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That is concerning, although it remains to be seen if it even gets off the ground, as a subreddit with 2 posts that has existed for less than a day. It seems like they're planning on covering their tracks and taking the subreddit private based on responses in the first thread. This might be worth bringing to people's attention at WP:AN. signed,Rosguill talk 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Kara (South Korean group)&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bela River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bela Reka.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War redirect after move
Hey. Thanks for adding the DS/alert to the editor, I was in the process of doing that after making sure I'd cleaned up after the move. There was a redirect left after I moved the page back to the original target; Russian intervention in Ukrainian civil war. I was about to WP:G3 nominate it, but then I remembered the part of WP:CIVIL about referring to (potentially) good faith edits as vandalism. I'm not sure if I can WP:G6 it, because none of the four criteria for that apply. Do I need to RfD it or can I get away with a G3 in this case? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , I think an RfD would be more appropriate here, since the case could be made that it is a valid redirect from a non-neutral name. signed,Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Will do that now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

abuse
I'm not really sure who to get assistance from on these matters as I'm still learning the reins of Wikipedia but a user keeps reverting the officeholder information of Vít Jedlička. Could you maybe check the talk page and review this? Thank you! MicroSupporter (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , slow down. You are pretty blatantly engaged in an edit war at that article, and are in direct violation of both WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE; both of those are blockable offenses. The unfounded assertion that the other editor is acting out of bias, when it seems like they're just enforcing WP:BLP to the letter, could further be construed as a personal attack. Talk it through on the talk page and make a positive case for why the information you propose to be added should be added, which can then be discussed by other editors. signed,Rosguill talk 15:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Thank you for your help. Still learning! MicroSupporter (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

How's your availability for NPP School?
What it says on the tin. I've been wanting to apply for the perm for a while (well before I hit 500 mainspace edits) but I don't think that I am perfectly fit for the role. Do you have a spot open?

Asparagusus  (interaction)  02:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , I think I have the capacity to take you on. Is there anything in particular you'd like to focus on, or would you like the full course? signed,Rosguill talk 15:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think in particular I have a problem with being bold. I often ignore problems because I'm worried I'll do something wrong. Other than that, the full course seems good. Thank you!
 * Asparagusus  (interaction)  18:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , you can start anytime at User:Rosguill/Asparagusus NPPSCHOOL signed,Rosguill talk 22:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi ?
Would it be possible to explain what you are asking us at DRN to do with respect to Pellumb Xhufi? The basic dispute appears to have to do with reliability of Xhufi as a source. That is normally a task for the reliable source noticeboard, but one of the parties posted an RFC there, and you recommended that they go to DRN. The other problem that I have is that this is a dispute with eight editors. I don't normally try to moderate cases with that many editors, because they are more appropriate for RFC, except that there are questions about whether the RFC is properly presented.

So what are you asking us to do at DRN with this dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that DRN could help identify what the main points of contention and pieces of evidence in support of the various perspectives are, while cutting down on irrelevant verbal sparring between the sides. Further discussion at RSN could also work, I was mostly trying to intervene against the convocation of an RfC at this time, which seems premature. signed,Rosguill talk 17:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to try something that I haven't done before, and that is to moderate a discussion at RSN in the same way as I would normally moderate a discussion at DRN. DRN, at least as I try to work it, has to do with article content disputes.  I will create a subpage for the discussion so that it doesn't clutter up RSN, which gets cluttered anyway.  We can try that and see how well it works.  I think that this is a type of dispute that we don't have much experience with.  If you either agree or don't have an opinion, I will wait for the other editors to reply, and will then tell them that I am creating a subpage off of RSN.  Is that all right?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it's worth a shot to me. signed,Rosguill talk 18:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we get many types of disputes in Wikipedia, we sometimes need to experiment with slightly new methods of dispute resolution. This will be one.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have started a subpage for discussion. Unless you ask me otherwise, I will post a mention of the discussion at RSN also, because it really is a sort of hybrid DRN/RSN thing.  You are welcome of course to join in the discussion.  I think that the discussion will result in an RFC at RSN, but first we want to get the issues defined clearly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that we need an English-language biography of Pellumb Xhufi and have asked them to clean up my machine-translation of his BLP from Albanian. I may be asking for your assistance again in a few days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , what kind of assistance are you expecting to need? signed,Rosguill talk 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I haven't tried this sort of conflict resolution before.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , skimming the discussion thus far, my sense is that the disputing parties' responses to your 5th prompt, asking for them to provide summaries of Xhufi's qualificattions or lack thereof, could provide a good basis for convening a more general RfC. For some reason, the pro-Xhufi camp has yet to make their case there. signed,Rosguill talk 22:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

alleged Florida voter fraud on Electoral fraud talk page
I feel like my intention in posting comment about claims of Florida voter fraud has been misconstrued.

I am not tryin to start a discussion about this topic per se, I'm trying to suggest that this is appropriate for incorporating into the article. I've include a brief overview and some pertinent details, based on what has been reported to date. Is there some reason that sort of content is not appropriate for an article talk page? Fabrickator (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaking me for, the editor that reverted you. My only involvement here is having been the last editor to edit the talk page before you did. signed,Rosguill talk 21:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fabrickator, you did not include any secondary sourcing in there (and a link to a primary source isn't helpful), nor did I see anything in there that indicated you were suggesting a change to the article. I would add that what you were talking about there is probably way too detailed for a general, worldwide article on voter fraud. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for reviewing my redirect page!

Tise exists (cool) (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC) 

Your recent Xinjiang IC reversion
Hello,

While I understand it may not be mentioned in the article *yet*, that shouldn't be a call to revert - if anything, that should be a call to *add that information into the article*. Amyipdev (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Such a change would require citations to relevant RS, which were not provided with the edit. Moreover, my interest in the article is to maintain it in line with Wikipedia policies and ensure that editors are editing it in a collaborative fashion; I'm not particularly interested in rewriting the article. However, if you have the relevant sources, you're more than welcome to make changes. signed,Rosguill talk 15:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I remember to when I get access back to my computer I will. If such is done would putting the electrical part back in the lead be appropriate? Amyipdev (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, only if the provided sources emphasize it as a particularly noteworthy element, and noting that the lead already mentions rape and torture. That having been said, I probably wouldn't get involved with that change, and would leave it for you to sort out with the other editors interested in the article. signed,Rosguill talk 15:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Bharat Jodo Yatra&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Crystal Palace F.C. (1861)&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!
And regards! Correogsk or Gustavo (Editrocito or Heme aquí) 10:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Bold revert
Sir, I would like to know why the king Thor page wasn't eligible and reverted back? As per my understanding, the page was edited in a basic comic book character page. Please respond! Thank you! Lord kai07 (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There's two issues: one is that you are edit warring against two other editors before I even arrived on the scene--you should primarily be discussing with them. However, to answer your question about the issue with the article, it needs significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources that address the character King Thor, not the comic book series King Thor. As written when I restored the redirect, the only source that would count towards that standard is this one, which is relatively weak as things go. An example of a better source would be something like this (for Superman). Also, please don't call me sir. signed,Rosguill talk 14:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I actually didn't even realise that. Also When the other editors mentioned real world notability. I didn't knew what it meant. Sorry for the mistake. Is it possible to add better sources like this and revert the page back? Lord kai07 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you can find multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, you are encouraged to go ahead and recreate the article. signed,Rosguill talk 13:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello , The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day. won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
 * Backlog
 * 2022 Awards

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from  to  '''

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as and  have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.