![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Hello, I have a Request for review Can you please review those if notable or eligible.
– Botu Yadav ( talk) 03:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@ AafiOnMobile:, I don't know why you thought that this is paid, I had never did a paid work. Whenever i am free, I do 1-4 articles at a time. So, it's not about paid work. Millat Times had 1 Million followers which page was deleted, so i think this is also good for establishing the Notability and many sources are listed below.
— Botu Yadav ( talk) 04:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rosguill,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 806 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 855 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself
here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey my friend Rosguill when i search Saiee Manjrekar article on google, the article doesn't see on google, please 🙏 review it Md Adnan ( talk) 11:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
You added a Notability tag and I'm looking for guidance on what to do. The page was preexisting, but it was just a redirect to *one* of the company's products which wasn't very useful. I simply added some flesh to the bones. The company's products had pre-exisiting WP pages, as did the founder and their investor. The company is also mentioned from those pages, and I converted those mentions to links to this new page. So it seems inconsistent if those are notable but the company is not. Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company of the same name, the company Integrated Systems Inc. is defunct for 12 years, it looks like names can be recycled.
-- Peter.corke ( talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company--the notability tag doesn't include a link to any other article, nor did I mention one in the edit summary. At the time that I placed the tag, I didn't have any opinion of what next steps should be: I placed it to let you know about my concerns, and to give you time to address them before I or another new page reviewer proceed to a deletion process or WP:BLAR.
Shouldn't we require NPPSCHOOL for editors with under 3k–5k edits before they can become autopatrolled/reviewers? I realize they're given a trial period, but who is overseeing them during the trial? I'm of the mind that proper schooling = better reviews that won't crop up later in the queue, and even if they turn out to be UPE, it reduces the chances of getting another Hatchens, or worse. Atsme 💬 📧 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Slywriter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Slywriter finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, so she/he did not spend any time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Slywriter&offset=20220725225033&target=Slywriter Ad65718 ( talk) 02:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Theroadislong ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Theroadislong finished his/her talk with 112.206.242.198 ( User_talk:112.206.242.198) on 20:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC), so he spent around 2 minutes to make a decision and write her/his comments, and she/he did not have time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Theroadislong&offset=20220726071241&target=Theroadislon Ad65718 ( talk) 02:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Cabrils ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cabrils finished his/her talk with DevaneyJohn ( User_talk:DevaneyJohn) on 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 00:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC), so he/she spent just 2 minutes to read and check the references, and then make a decision! You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Cabrils&offset=20220720221645&target=Cabrils Ad65718 ( talk) 02:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gstatic.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Palosirkka ( talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am a (relatively) new contributor and am experiencing a challenge in getting my first new article published (even as a stub), and therefore would appreciate some feedback from the experienced editor like yourself. I have tried to learn from my very first submission (which appeared like a good candidate to me at the time) but seemingly I didn't quote enough sources and it was declined, so for my second attempt I've chosen the subject for whom I've had a good variety of quality independent sources with significant coverage ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Andrew_Rovenko), as I've been following their work for a while now.
The same editor who declined my very first failed article had also reviewed my new submission and left a couple of comments questioning the suitability of my submission, but not declining it. I tried to get a clarification from this editor on their Talk page to confirm the reasons behind their concerns, while providing the reference to the notability guidelines that I used as a basis for my submission, but after asking some additional questions they didn't provide any specifics at all and directed me to find help elsewhere, which I'm trying to do now.
If it's ok, it might be easier if I refer to our conversation with the editor, so that I don't have to repeat my points: Article_Review_Comment_on_Andrew_Rovenko
I'd really appreciate some guidance / constructive feedback from another experienced editor like yourself, as at the moment it doesn't seem like I'm making much progress.
Thank you Jervisbay94 ( talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Jervisbay94
Hi there, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_27#Ars_arcana as delete. The deletion summary does not link to the discussion, only to the general Rfd page. Since you mention the discussion in your close for attribution reasons, I think it's worth trying going back to link directly to the discussion. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 00:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, you were the person who put me on the Redirect autopatrol list, could you remove me from there? I am now autopatrolled and it doesn't make sense anymore. Thank you very much and sorry for the inconvenience, I have made the request here. Dandilero ( talk) 09:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Charan on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, I have found IP users linked to one sockpuppet master who you have previously banned. [4] He's back now using different IP users to restore his old revisions that I've reverted months back. [5] [6] Ayaltimo ( talk) 06:08, 08 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill. Since the accidental damage of my laptop on 14 May, I'm not in a position to access my main account, and the technician alongside the LCD is likely [not sure] to come after 8 July, according to the customer care executive of the Dell. It is getting delayed due to lockdown in China. I contribute to very little extent through RMT and AfC etc on my mobile account. The moving process is all about redirects in between, and they often go un-patrolled. Please grant my account the psuedo-right so that the redirect are by-default marked as patrolled. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I cordially ask you to copy in my Sandbox the deleted article on the energy researcher Toufik Boushaki, now within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was deleted on May 20, 2021 at 10:39, in order to improve it. Cordially. -- Authentise ( talk) 14:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey Rosguill, I saw you reviewed my page for Gabe Klinger. Someone else took it down because they felt it lacked notability. I was wondering if you think I should revert the page back to what it was or do you also think this is a subject that lacks notability? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob1026 ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. May I please ask your senior opinion, in view of your experience of peaceful dispute resolution in AA topics? Here, I started a discussion about a revert that I felt was not justified. Not so much the content of the revert, but the method of operation itself, which I feel i(knowing the user well) is being overused. I admit I sounded more irritated then an average user would be in such average situation. However, what followed afterwards puzzled me very much - the intervention by the mentor felt anything but mediation or dispute resolution attempt to me. I felt attacked and threatened, and was left bewildered about the whole policy vs guidelines vs essay difference. Do you think it was a right step to ask an emotionally involved mentor to intervene instead of providing explanation and using neutral dispute resolution tools? And what is the right thing to do with the intimidating response from the mentor? Does it comply with Wikipedia code of conduct? Thanks. Best wishes, --Armatura ( talk) 14:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, Many thanks for your partitipation in improving of created by us article Nicolai L. Volodos. Following your recommendation, some references have been added. In case you consider that improvement enough to remove your tag, please do it.
Vit713828 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit713828 ( talk • contribs)
Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#Saadat_Kadyrova; I think there is a pattern here. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 14:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, I'd want to get your senior opinion, based on your expertise in conflict resolution in AA area.
Here I removed Saadat's response because her opinion is not related to official Azerbaijan position. I also wrote a note explaining my edit on the talk page
[11]. Soon my edit was reverted
[12] with following comments The source says she's Azerbaijani. If you have source(s) disputing this, provide on talk
. Long story short, I proved that attributing Saadat's opinion, who is Russian citizen and works for
TASS, to Azerbaijan due to her nationality is unacceptable.
Later on, ZaniGiovanni had the proposal to tweak the article's structure and make it a nationality-based response rather than a country-based response. Here is the draft of RfC of proposal [13]. This proposal completely changes structure of the article and has limited relation to Saadat and thus to my edit. I really do not understand why we mixing Saadat into this RfC. I think that RfC will be more efficient without mixing this two cases. Based on RfC outcome's Saadat's opinion always can be properly added back into the article. Do you think that it is right that my good faith edit was reverted, and was not reinstated even after I proved the point, and instead I forced to raise RfC for someone else's proposal?
Please do not get me wrong, it is not about principals and not about how I like it. I agreed to raise RfC and I will(there we delays because I had an emergency surgery recently). I trying to act as per Wikipedia Policies and as far as I concerned - I acted as per policies. Moreover, it feels not right and not fair against me. The reason I contacted you is to get advice on that feeling and my understanding of the policy. I am a human and I can make mistakes. Even if you say that I am wrong about this feeling and explain me - I will happily accept your advice. Thanks in advance! Abrvagl ( talk) 07:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The source says she's Azerbaijani. If you have source(s) disputing this, provide on talk.. Then I proved that Saadat is citizen of Russian and works for TASS, and her personal opinion is not official response of Azerbaijan. [18]. Later, I even agreed to move information about Saadat to the International Response section of Azerbaijan [19], but Zani disagreed with proposal.
Should coverage related to Saadat Kadyrova's statements on Russian television be removed from the articlewould be sufficient. I could honestly go either way on whether the simple or compound RfC is a better use of our time, but I think that actually opening the RfC, with either set of prompts, would be a marked improvement over any other further discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
hi rosguill. you've made many nice articles. i do wish you'd lay off militant policing of new redirects --at least from me. clearly, you came across my fat land parrot redirect while checking your own fat men's club article, right? right? oh, yes, admit it. (i thought FMC was a joke until looking, but now i'm won over.) as for mine, i'm taking phrases i hear on tiktok and other young-person platforms and redirecting them to their actual encyclopedic articles. (yo, that's GOOD.) at least i was doing that. now that you're being such a so-and-so, it becomes not-worth my free time. your deletionist effort contributes to the looming extinction of the kakapo, but hey, at least you have some sort of satisfaction to please yourself with. by the time RS you demand for a redirect (what? we need RS for redirects?) appear, by the time NYT or OED put the youth nickname in an article, there will be no kakapo left. think of the dodo bird or the passenger pigeon: there came a time when fewer than 200 individuals of the species remained, and at that point, every person contributing to their demise helped make the species finally EXTINCT. that's you. "thanks" mate. delete away. Cramyourspam ( talk) 03:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you tagged Naminara Republic, that can be the first step to deletion. I created the page because it was present in {{ Micronations}} with a {{ ill}} and there was also redirect pointing to Namiseom but there was no paragraph dealing with it. Of course you can challenge the page and even delete it, but remember to delete also the links.-- Carnby ( talk) 06:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. In the recent AE, you said "I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious". I checked my talk page today, and apparently Abrvagl has requested a 3rd opinion for a 2 month old discussion and notified on my talk also pinging me on the article. He also said on my talk page the request was done "as per your suggestion"; A) I would never have suggested someone to open a third opinion for a 2-month-old discussion, what I meant was obviously for the time we were in discussion, B) Do you think this is or isn't WP:DROPTHESTICK territory? I didn't comment in AE because I want to hear outside and admin opinion first. I didn't even remember this died out discussion until I was pinged on talk and saw my talk page notification. My replies to that thread were mostly under the section Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage from 2 months ago. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 13:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not convinced with the deletion close at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 17#Internet Explorer 12. Please provide your reasoning. Jay (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not know if there will ever be an IE 12 or not, so it should be deleted.It's not an airtight argument, but it seemed sufficient to me in context. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hiya. Thanks for that one - I spent ages looking at it wondering quite what to do - there's already a redirect from Draft:Jet Jaguar so draftifying (my go to action) wasn't an option, and yet I baulked at a blank and redirect - and tagging wasn't the solution as it was indeed 100% unreferenced and mostly content from the parent article. So I watched it and moved on to wait for someone more sensible to make a call. :) Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Universal suffrage on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Howdy! Please take a look at [22]. This is an extraordinary number of net-negative links over a short period of time by someone with a username that we both know raises a flag. I have three urgent deadlines in the next 24 hours and can't track this. Can you please look into this? Merci beaucoup! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Hello, I have a Request for review Can you please review those if notable or eligible.
– Botu Yadav ( talk) 03:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@ AafiOnMobile:, I don't know why you thought that this is paid, I had never did a paid work. Whenever i am free, I do 1-4 articles at a time. So, it's not about paid work. Millat Times had 1 Million followers which page was deleted, so i think this is also good for establishing the Notability and many sources are listed below.
— Botu Yadav ( talk) 04:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rosguill,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 806 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 855 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself
here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey my friend Rosguill when i search Saiee Manjrekar article on google, the article doesn't see on google, please 🙏 review it Md Adnan ( talk) 11:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
You added a Notability tag and I'm looking for guidance on what to do. The page was preexisting, but it was just a redirect to *one* of the company's products which wasn't very useful. I simply added some flesh to the bones. The company's products had pre-exisiting WP pages, as did the founder and their investor. The company is also mentioned from those pages, and I converted those mentions to links to this new page. So it seems inconsistent if those are notable but the company is not. Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company of the same name, the company Integrated Systems Inc. is defunct for 12 years, it looks like names can be recycled.
-- Peter.corke ( talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company--the notability tag doesn't include a link to any other article, nor did I mention one in the edit summary. At the time that I placed the tag, I didn't have any opinion of what next steps should be: I placed it to let you know about my concerns, and to give you time to address them before I or another new page reviewer proceed to a deletion process or WP:BLAR.
Shouldn't we require NPPSCHOOL for editors with under 3k–5k edits before they can become autopatrolled/reviewers? I realize they're given a trial period, but who is overseeing them during the trial? I'm of the mind that proper schooling = better reviews that won't crop up later in the queue, and even if they turn out to be UPE, it reduces the chances of getting another Hatchens, or worse. Atsme 💬 📧 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Slywriter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Slywriter finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC), just 2 minutes between Draft:Eureka_Scientific and Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation, so she/he did not spend any time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Slywriter&offset=20220725225033&target=Slywriter Ad65718 ( talk) 02:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Theroadislong ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Theroadislong finished his/her talk with 112.206.242.198 ( User_talk:112.206.242.198) on 20:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:Eureka_Scientific on 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC), so he spent around 2 minutes to make a decision and write her/his comments, and she/he did not have time to read the text and check the references. You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Theroadislong&offset=20220726071241&target=Theroadislon Ad65718 ( talk) 02:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Cabrils ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cabrils finished his/her talk with DevaneyJohn ( User_talk:DevaneyJohn) on 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC), then finished his/her review of Draft:White Dwarf Research Corporation on 00:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC), so he/she spent just 2 minutes to read and check the references, and then make a decision! You can check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Cabrils&offset=20220720221645&target=Cabrils Ad65718 ( talk) 02:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gstatic.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Palosirkka ( talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am a (relatively) new contributor and am experiencing a challenge in getting my first new article published (even as a stub), and therefore would appreciate some feedback from the experienced editor like yourself. I have tried to learn from my very first submission (which appeared like a good candidate to me at the time) but seemingly I didn't quote enough sources and it was declined, so for my second attempt I've chosen the subject for whom I've had a good variety of quality independent sources with significant coverage ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Andrew_Rovenko), as I've been following their work for a while now.
The same editor who declined my very first failed article had also reviewed my new submission and left a couple of comments questioning the suitability of my submission, but not declining it. I tried to get a clarification from this editor on their Talk page to confirm the reasons behind their concerns, while providing the reference to the notability guidelines that I used as a basis for my submission, but after asking some additional questions they didn't provide any specifics at all and directed me to find help elsewhere, which I'm trying to do now.
If it's ok, it might be easier if I refer to our conversation with the editor, so that I don't have to repeat my points: Article_Review_Comment_on_Andrew_Rovenko
I'd really appreciate some guidance / constructive feedback from another experienced editor like yourself, as at the moment it doesn't seem like I'm making much progress.
Thank you Jervisbay94 ( talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Jervisbay94
Hi there, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_27#Ars_arcana as delete. The deletion summary does not link to the discussion, only to the general Rfd page. Since you mention the discussion in your close for attribution reasons, I think it's worth trying going back to link directly to the discussion. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 00:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, you were the person who put me on the Redirect autopatrol list, could you remove me from there? I am now autopatrolled and it doesn't make sense anymore. Thank you very much and sorry for the inconvenience, I have made the request here. Dandilero ( talk) 09:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Charan on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, I have found IP users linked to one sockpuppet master who you have previously banned. [4] He's back now using different IP users to restore his old revisions that I've reverted months back. [5] [6] Ayaltimo ( talk) 06:08, 08 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill. Since the accidental damage of my laptop on 14 May, I'm not in a position to access my main account, and the technician alongside the LCD is likely [not sure] to come after 8 July, according to the customer care executive of the Dell. It is getting delayed due to lockdown in China. I contribute to very little extent through RMT and AfC etc on my mobile account. The moving process is all about redirects in between, and they often go un-patrolled. Please grant my account the psuedo-right so that the redirect are by-default marked as patrolled. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I cordially ask you to copy in my Sandbox the deleted article on the energy researcher Toufik Boushaki, now within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was deleted on May 20, 2021 at 10:39, in order to improve it. Cordially. -- Authentise ( talk) 14:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey Rosguill, I saw you reviewed my page for Gabe Klinger. Someone else took it down because they felt it lacked notability. I was wondering if you think I should revert the page back to what it was or do you also think this is a subject that lacks notability? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob1026 ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. May I please ask your senior opinion, in view of your experience of peaceful dispute resolution in AA topics? Here, I started a discussion about a revert that I felt was not justified. Not so much the content of the revert, but the method of operation itself, which I feel i(knowing the user well) is being overused. I admit I sounded more irritated then an average user would be in such average situation. However, what followed afterwards puzzled me very much - the intervention by the mentor felt anything but mediation or dispute resolution attempt to me. I felt attacked and threatened, and was left bewildered about the whole policy vs guidelines vs essay difference. Do you think it was a right step to ask an emotionally involved mentor to intervene instead of providing explanation and using neutral dispute resolution tools? And what is the right thing to do with the intimidating response from the mentor? Does it comply with Wikipedia code of conduct? Thanks. Best wishes, --Armatura ( talk) 14:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, Many thanks for your partitipation in improving of created by us article Nicolai L. Volodos. Following your recommendation, some references have been added. In case you consider that improvement enough to remove your tag, please do it.
Vit713828 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit713828 ( talk • contribs)
Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#Saadat_Kadyrova; I think there is a pattern here. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 14:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, I'd want to get your senior opinion, based on your expertise in conflict resolution in AA area.
Here I removed Saadat's response because her opinion is not related to official Azerbaijan position. I also wrote a note explaining my edit on the talk page
[11]. Soon my edit was reverted
[12] with following comments The source says she's Azerbaijani. If you have source(s) disputing this, provide on talk
. Long story short, I proved that attributing Saadat's opinion, who is Russian citizen and works for
TASS, to Azerbaijan due to her nationality is unacceptable.
Later on, ZaniGiovanni had the proposal to tweak the article's structure and make it a nationality-based response rather than a country-based response. Here is the draft of RfC of proposal [13]. This proposal completely changes structure of the article and has limited relation to Saadat and thus to my edit. I really do not understand why we mixing Saadat into this RfC. I think that RfC will be more efficient without mixing this two cases. Based on RfC outcome's Saadat's opinion always can be properly added back into the article. Do you think that it is right that my good faith edit was reverted, and was not reinstated even after I proved the point, and instead I forced to raise RfC for someone else's proposal?
Please do not get me wrong, it is not about principals and not about how I like it. I agreed to raise RfC and I will(there we delays because I had an emergency surgery recently). I trying to act as per Wikipedia Policies and as far as I concerned - I acted as per policies. Moreover, it feels not right and not fair against me. The reason I contacted you is to get advice on that feeling and my understanding of the policy. I am a human and I can make mistakes. Even if you say that I am wrong about this feeling and explain me - I will happily accept your advice. Thanks in advance! Abrvagl ( talk) 07:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The source says she's Azerbaijani. If you have source(s) disputing this, provide on talk.. Then I proved that Saadat is citizen of Russian and works for TASS, and her personal opinion is not official response of Azerbaijan. [18]. Later, I even agreed to move information about Saadat to the International Response section of Azerbaijan [19], but Zani disagreed with proposal.
Should coverage related to Saadat Kadyrova's statements on Russian television be removed from the articlewould be sufficient. I could honestly go either way on whether the simple or compound RfC is a better use of our time, but I think that actually opening the RfC, with either set of prompts, would be a marked improvement over any other further discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
hi rosguill. you've made many nice articles. i do wish you'd lay off militant policing of new redirects --at least from me. clearly, you came across my fat land parrot redirect while checking your own fat men's club article, right? right? oh, yes, admit it. (i thought FMC was a joke until looking, but now i'm won over.) as for mine, i'm taking phrases i hear on tiktok and other young-person platforms and redirecting them to their actual encyclopedic articles. (yo, that's GOOD.) at least i was doing that. now that you're being such a so-and-so, it becomes not-worth my free time. your deletionist effort contributes to the looming extinction of the kakapo, but hey, at least you have some sort of satisfaction to please yourself with. by the time RS you demand for a redirect (what? we need RS for redirects?) appear, by the time NYT or OED put the youth nickname in an article, there will be no kakapo left. think of the dodo bird or the passenger pigeon: there came a time when fewer than 200 individuals of the species remained, and at that point, every person contributing to their demise helped make the species finally EXTINCT. that's you. "thanks" mate. delete away. Cramyourspam ( talk) 03:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you tagged Naminara Republic, that can be the first step to deletion. I created the page because it was present in {{ Micronations}} with a {{ ill}} and there was also redirect pointing to Namiseom but there was no paragraph dealing with it. Of course you can challenge the page and even delete it, but remember to delete also the links.-- Carnby ( talk) 06:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. In the recent AE, you said "I don't think we're quite in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory where continuing to raise the issue becomes tendentious". I checked my talk page today, and apparently Abrvagl has requested a 3rd opinion for a 2 month old discussion and notified on my talk also pinging me on the article. He also said on my talk page the request was done "as per your suggestion"; A) I would never have suggested someone to open a third opinion for a 2-month-old discussion, what I meant was obviously for the time we were in discussion, B) Do you think this is or isn't WP:DROPTHESTICK territory? I didn't comment in AE because I want to hear outside and admin opinion first. I didn't even remember this died out discussion until I was pinged on talk and saw my talk page notification. My replies to that thread were mostly under the section Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage from 2 months ago. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 13:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not convinced with the deletion close at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 17#Internet Explorer 12. Please provide your reasoning. Jay (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not know if there will ever be an IE 12 or not, so it should be deleted.It's not an airtight argument, but it seemed sufficient to me in context. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hiya. Thanks for that one - I spent ages looking at it wondering quite what to do - there's already a redirect from Draft:Jet Jaguar so draftifying (my go to action) wasn't an option, and yet I baulked at a blank and redirect - and tagging wasn't the solution as it was indeed 100% unreferenced and mostly content from the parent article. So I watched it and moved on to wait for someone more sensible to make a call. :) Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Universal suffrage on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Howdy! Please take a look at [22]. This is an extraordinary number of net-negative links over a short period of time by someone with a username that we both know raises a flag. I have three urgent deadlines in the next 24 hours and can't track this. Can you please look into this? Merci beaucoup! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).