User talk:Rosguill

Deletion of the "List_of_kakapo" page

Mr Rosguill, I understand you are at the origin of the removal of the "list of kakapo" page. While I may understand the concerns you had about this page, it has definitely notability value for the community for numerous reasons: - Kakapo recovery program is the most notable, most well-funded and most successful bird recovery program in New Zealand, birds were saved from the absolute brink of extinction. They were given names and so did their offspring, the fact those individual names are so important is because of their limited genepool and the fact that certain birds have to breed in order for the species to survive as a whole (most notably, the offspring of the Fiordland kakapo Richard Henry) - therefor, this information is key. - The article is well-sourced - the Twitter, Instagram and Facebook sources come directly from the New Zealand Department of COnservation that lead the program and are as such not a matter of controversy - The article is completely up to date with the control of those official sources - The article is important for the non-scientific community, as there is no other publicly available source of information for this list of birds - Due to the strong emotional bond many people within or outside New Zealnd (such as me) feel to these birds, it is important to have the names, especially since the information is correct - One would argue that when a list with no interest whatsoever such as like the succession order to the throne of a country exists, this list would be way more important. - To gauge the interest, I would suggest you take a look at takapodigs (Andrew Digby) - the science advisor for the kakapo recovery program page on Twitter, and on the Department of Conservation and Kakapo Recovery and Sirocco the Kakapo pages on Facebook and Instagram to see how thousands of people are literally rabid about the informations you deem uncrucial.

As such, I would ask you to return the page to wikipedia, or at the very least provide me the PDF of the last version of the page, so that at the very least I can follow it on my side and at least keep the info and share it with the (numerous) people interested in it.

Thanks for the read, I hope you take the appropriate measures in either restoring the page or merging it with the kakapo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasquiDerder (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You are free to request a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kākāpō. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Aldaman Gheza

@Rosguill Hello could you please look at mine and Wikieditor's case in the article Aldaman-Gheza? I noticed before that you talked with a different user regarding an SPI case on him but i didn't want to get involved but it is becoming a hassle to edit articles due to this users use of cherrypicked sources and attempts at Ingushifying articles. I have a long history with Wikieditor and i have always had to undo dubious claims of his that claim this or that Vainakh tribe or clan is Ingush or have had to start deletion cases against articles that talk about Ingush battles (where the Ingush of course defeat Chechens) with dubious sources. Here are some of them already deleted articles Nazran Battle, List of Ingush battles and Battle for the Assa river all of them were extremely biased to the point where they became insulting, Wikieditor needed just a source of an old Ingush man that bragged about how his ancestors defeated Chechens and it was enough for him to create an article on it. The reason why i'm mentioning this specific case is because he does it again, today he's using the story of an Ingush elder who claims a 17th century Chechen historical figure (that is a hero to both Chechens and Ingush) is actually an Ingush. Wikieditor believes this should be mentioned in the article and be given the same weight as the Chechen version despite overwhelming evidence of him being an ethnic Chechen (which i posted in the talk page). The same source Wikieditor uses records another Ingush folktale where apparently the Ingush and Chechen nation are descended from Arabs. He leaves no room for context, all he needs is a source that says "this is Ingush". I have elaborated further in the talk page on other sources but the main issue here is that Wikieditor tries to "Ingushify" articles and at times he removes Chechens and replaces them with Ingush. Just recently here he removes the Chechen translation of a mountain name and replaces it with an Ingush name despite the mountain having been important in Chechen paganism. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Aldaman Gheza, I'm not quite sure I follow what the grave issue is--the most recent edits add up to adding an Ingush spelling to the note in the lead, and the addition of biographical detail that seems unrelated to Ingush identity one way or another. Given that the article already had cited claims of Gheza's relevance to "Chechen-Ingush folklore", adding the name's Ingush spelling seems like it could plausibly be WP:DUE and thus is not obvious evidence of improper editing, absent a talk page consensus against the addition. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill The issue isn't the Ingush spelling in the lead, i haven't even mentioned it in the talk page the issue is that Wikieditor wants to present Aldaman Gheza as a historical person who could've been either Ingush or Chechen which is why he added "Ingush people" category to the article.

His proposition in talk page basically explains it:

""Some authors mention him as Chechen based on the folklore recorded in Chechnya (here you add your sources), others mention him as Ingush based on the folklore recorded in Ingushetia respectively (I add my sources). In historical documents he's mentioned as an feudal lord living in Cheberloy, of Aldamovich lineage (Aitberov as the source here)"

He relies on a 1925 source by the author Yakovlev who records a folk tale from an Ingush elder who refers to this historical person as Ingush. This folktale was used as a source by others like Anchabadze and Zyazikov. This however ignores the fact that Aldaman Gheza known residence and clan has been known since the 17th century and has been referred to as an ethnic Chechen by most. The sources i posted in the talk page shows it and even the ones already existing in the article itself. His clan is Chechen (Makazhoy), his tribe is Chechen (Cheberloy), none of these are considered Ingush.

This is why i mentioned previously deleted articles of his, like the "Nazran conflict" which he made solely based on the words of 1 Ingush man telling a story. Now he's using another outdated folktale to claim that a Chechen historical leader was Ingush. Also is it possible to warn him over edits such as this one? they are unexplained and disrespectful. He could've just added Ingush and not deleted the Chechen version. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. I’m currently traveling and can’t promise that I’ll be able to give this proper attention right now. I expect that if you write an enforcement request at WP:AE, focusing specifically on their use of folkloric sources to establish ethnic categories, you will receive an adequate response. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all I'm not cherrypicking sources and not trying to Ingushify articles, you're trying to implement that I do nationalist editing which I don't. For years the Aldaman Gheza page was actually full of folktales which were masked as historical before I pointed them out, for example the battles where the mighty Chechens won against Kabardian princes or the participation of Gheza in Battle of Khachara which are both purely folkloric. So aren't you using folklore yourself? You like to bring up my past articles, which were my mistakes that I have long time ago understood, perhaps understand that people change? I removed Chechen translation of mt. Kazbek, because it's clearly was not needed in my perspective. I have not heard about it being popular in Chechen paganism, maybe you're confusing other Bashlams (lit. molten mountain) with Kazbek (also called Bashlam in Chechen), Chechnya has actually two Bashlams. The Ingush translation on the other hand was needed as the Mt. Kazbek bordered with Ingush lands such as Gveleti, many famous Ingush alpinists such as the Buzurtanovs have climbed it, lastly it has special place in Ingush paganism.

You can't prove that the Yakovlev was the primary source and that Anchabadze and Zyazikov referred to him, no evidence for your claims. Folklore regarding Aldaman Gheza was also recorded by others like Magomet Dzhabagiev in Nasyr Kort, see this. Perhaps we will continue our discussion without bothering the admin? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you implying i'm promoting nationalistic folktales? i didn't create the article and i was more than willing to fix the article and clarify what is a folktale and what is not in the text. I will remind you again if you forgot: we could however mention the author who used this folklore and shorten the text a little while emphasizing why and how the author made these claims such as. You however were adamant on changing the ethnicity of Aldaman Gheza and giving undue weight to the Ingush version. Anchabadze's version is an exact copy of the Yakovlev version but sure maybe he got it from somewhere else. I can't see if Dzhabagiev from Nasyr-kort called Aldam "Ingush" he could've like Evkurov's from Olgeti (recorded by Malsagov in 1962) just mentioned the tale without saying he's Ingush but either way it doesn't matter since Aldaman Gheza is an ethnic Chechen. Your past articles are directly connected to this current one, i already explained why i mentioned it. The Bashlam that is mentioned by Chokaev and Suleymanov is related to mount Kazbek, Ingush being closer to it doesn't matter it is part of Chechen folklore and pagan characters such as Pkharmat/Phyari. Strange how you don't mind claiming a Chechen feudal lord from the border of Dagestan but protest against a Chechen name for a mountain bordering Ingushetia. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill It seems Wikieditor has "dropped it" when it comes to the ethnicity change based on folklore after i involved you. I personally think i should continue with the WP:AE case as this is not the first time and given recent history i doubt it's the last time. I don't want to involve an admin every time Wikieditor makes an unexplained edit like this one or gives undue weight to Ingush folklore like he did on those three previously deleted articles and now Aldaman-Gheza. Should i continue to WP:AE? surely some sort of warning or restriction should be implemented? Goddard2000 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add in the article my suggested text "that authors claim he was Ingush based on folklore" because I was going to wait to reach a consensus with you, but to admit my mistake, I made a haste in adding the category "Ingush people", so I apologize for adding the category. Either way I was going to remove it today but you were faster than me in doing so. Though you're clearly overexaggerating that I supposedly "give undue weight to Ingush folklore", when I myself pointed out many folkloric "battles" used in Aldaman Gheza, for example the Battle of Khachara (1667) should definitely be looked as well as the article is full of folklore. I would appreciate if you would refrain from bringing up 6 months old deleted articles, one of which (Battle of the Assa River) I personally told you in your talk page should be deleted after I realized my mistakes. Regarding Kazbek once again, I'm not right now protesting against it, since it seems it's supposedly a big part in Chechen paganism and folklore, if it makes you feel better I will add it back. I didn't think this discussion would result in this, am personally not in the mood to have a conflict over such article and would like to improve the article as right now to me it doesn't look good, full of folklore mixed with few historical info. Perhaps we could try to work out some things? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Hello i don't want to bother you since you're traveling but i was wondering if i can continue with my WP:AE report despite Wikieditor dropping his attempt at giving Ingush folklore undue weight (again only after i involve an admin)? In my opinion it sets a bad precedent when a user is allowed to do unexplained edits and give undue weight again and again but only stopping after an admin is involved. Given recent history more cases like this could appear and i don't have time to look through every article and undo edits like these or debate over outdated folktales like these. Should there not be a warning or a restriction? or is WP:AE maybe not the correct place to ask for one? Goddard2000 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If there's prior instances of similar behavior (and particularly, prior instances of similar behavior, followed by promises to do better, followed by more instances), there could still be grounds for a nontrivial sanction. If there's no indication that problematic behavior is going to continue, at most I would expect a formal warning, and even then only if there's edits that can only be explained by major or intentional failures to understand policy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill I see, There are prior instances of Wikieditor admitting his mistakes in other articles where he pushed outdated folktales (although only after admins deleted the other two articles) before he eventually returned to trying to do the very same thing on Aldaman-Gheza. I was wondering though, could i use the "administrators noticeboard" to pursue a warning/restriction etc instead? WP:AE seems focused on "contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator" which confuses me. Goddard2000 (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend AE over ANI for any topic where it is an option, as the format forces reports to be more focused, cuts down on pointless arguing between the parties to a case, and gets more direct attention from admins; reports at ANI are much more likely to end inconclusively. As Chechen and Ingush topics are both part of the CTOPs designation for Eastern Europe, they’re fair game for AE (my sense is that the wording that confused you is related to the fact that AE is also a forum for appealing CTOPs measures applied by an admin unilaterally, but that’s just a separate use-case for the forum). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Alright i made a report, could you when you have time check if i did it correctly? much of Wikipedia is very new for me despite using this website for 3 years now. The part that confuses me is "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" which should i put there? is WP:ARBEE good? Goddard2000 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The report looks well formatted. I agree that the "sanction or remedy to be enforced" instruction is quite confusing, but ARBEE is the correct answer in this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Thank you, i was also wondering is there a chance for me to respond to Seraphimblade? I'm confused as to where i can elaborate some more in the report without exceeding over 500 words. I bring up 4 month old deleted articles to illustrate how Wikieditor uses outdated folktales to push nationalistic narratives, he basically said he changed after two of the articles were deleted but apparently he has not since he still uses them to change the ethnicity of Chechen historical figures and imply they are Ingush. Even the source Wikieditor used in Aldaman Gheza he used in the "Nazran conflict" article. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You are allowed to add replies directed to administrators as a subreply of your "Additional comments" section, although you're strongly advised to be brief. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill It seems the WP:AE is at a standstill for the moment? Should i wait or should i try on a different noticeboard? In my opinion i have demonstrated enough that Wikieditor does WP:NATIONALIST editing while ignoring WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PST but i can do it in more detail if it's needed. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Waiting is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill So Seraphimblade wants to close the WP:AE because no admins have an appetite for it apparently, should i go to a different noticeboard? because i don't understand how Wikipedia really works, i have read "Wikipedia:Nationalist editing" and demonstrated how Wikieditor pushes nationalistic narratives that aren't allowed but i guess WP:AE was the wrong noticeboard for it. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Hey i just noticed your answer and i too would like to close this case soon but i was wondering what you meant by they were under the impression that Gheza was a folklore figure? because i was not under the impression that he was a folklore figure alone, i provided historical documents of his existence here in the talk page before he tried to include him as a historical figure. After providing the sources he argued that despite this he should be mentioned as Ingush and even mentioned the historical documents in the very same sentence in his proposal here: "Some authors mention him as Chechen based on the folklore recorded in Chechnya (here you add your sources), others mention him as Ingush based on the folklore recorded in Ingushetia respectively (I add my sources). In historical documents he's mentioned as an feudal lord living in Cheberloy, of Aldamovich lineage (Aitberov as the source here)". Note that his inclusion of the Ingush category AFTER i provided the historical sources and showed that this figure was indeed not just a folklore figure as you can see here if you compare the time with the previous diff. It is obvious that he knew it since he literally mentioned it in his proposal.

So based on folklore he wanted to add Ingush ethnicity and ignore the historical documents which place him in Chechnya. Also could you comment on the unexplained edits of his where he removes "Chechen" and replaces it with "Ingush", thank you and again sorry if i'm bothering too much. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Even a big part of the discussion in the talk page was him wanting to divide the folktale aspect and historical aspects (except the Ingush ethnicity), i can quote him:

Also, let's sort out the historical info and folklore info into two different sections named "Historicity" and "In Folklore".

In historical documents he's mentioned as an feudal lord

but I changed "big parts" according to the historicity of the figure Goddard2000 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

GS/AA

Hello. I've noticed you've enforced GS/AA in here [1] and notified the user. I've been trying to enforce in other articles + nominating pages for deletion that were created in violation of WP:GS/AA among other things such as mostly lack of WP:RS. The non-ECP user ignored the notice I left on their user page and reverted me [2]. Could you take a look as an admin who has enforced GS/AA? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Kevo327, it's rare that I tell editors that they should have brought something to my attention sooner, but I think this is the case here. New editors engaging in GS/CTOP noncompliance are rarely going to listen to anyone until they are blocked because it's very easy to gloss past the GS/CTOP warnings and interpret other editors' objections as bad faith obstruction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to AfD the articles created in the restricted area by the non-EC user, I even tried to cross some of the articles that could be merged, yet still fall under GS. While it all could've been just blanked I assume. But I don't think the 2 users participating in the AfD so far are aware of the sanctions in AA (even though I mention it in the nomination). Do you think withdrawing the AfD and just blanking instead would be an option now? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point since it's at AfD I think it's better to let it run. The articles are now in a procedural gray area where there really isn't an obvious path forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that the AfD has run its course, would the GS blanking option still be viable? It seems both excessive and unfair to everyone else’s time to create 12 individual AFD nominations, when the user whom the WP:BURDEN is on is currently blocked for violating GS/AA twice. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that a bold WP:BLAR would be appropriate for articles where there's a valid redirect option (it can always be contested by any editor), otherwise AfD is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that after their 2nd block, the user violated GS/AA again by creating this AfD [3]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What in the world were they thinking? I also can't shake the feeling that there's a weird amount of behavioral overlap with AmanAmanAmaTurq, although at a glance they would appear to be on opposite sides of the conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Another user warned twice actively edits GS/AA articles [4], thought to let you know. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Edward Lord

It seems odd to me that the AfD on Edward Lord should be closed the same day you relisted it because there was no feedback after your relist. A little precipitate? I put quite some time into my argument, I don't mind delete or keep, but no consensus seems a waste of that time... And I'm not invested enough for a DRV on an NAC!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, Given how quickly you caught this, I've gone ahead and just reverted the close--it's pretty clear that they simply misread the timestamp of the most recent relist when reasoning through the close (and I suspect I know why: the AfD clearing house page takes a few hours to refresh and remove recently closed or relisted discussions) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As I say, I have no great investment in the outcome, but it would be nice to see it play out to a result!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just came here to apologize when I saw this thread. I fairly regularly patrol AFD, usually just reading and learning, when I can across that AFD. You’re correct @Rosguill, I saw that was awaiting closure, and I thought it would be pretty uncontroversial for me to close it as no consensus. I should’ve checked the time stamps, and am very sorry. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Limitation

Hello Rosguill, can you change the restriction for me indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. Half a year has passed, I didn’t have any violations, I didn’t create others. I wanted to write one article on the history of the Caucasus. Товболатов (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов, I'd ask that you make that appeal at WP:AE to allow for independent review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try as you say. It will be very difficult...--Товболатов (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I wrote, I hope they will consider.--Товболатов (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill good evening, in general, they don’t trust me, maybe you will say your opinion, they will listen to you. I didn't commit any major infractions. I thought I would be blocked for a maximum of two days, but not that much. At the same time, even if I break the rule, they will immediately block me, I don’t need it, I wouldn’t apply there. --Товболатов (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing admins are going to be looking at the track record of editing since the ban to evaluate whether you are a demonstrated asset to en.wiki that should be allowed to edit without restrictions again. If you have specific contributions on other projects (e.g. new articles, significant expansions, or contentious discussions well-handled), it would be good to point to them. Absent that kind of evidence, making minimal edits for the duration of your ban here is going to make uninvolved editors think you are not here to build an encyclopedia, and are just trying to go back to editing a topic with ulterior motives. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote several articles in the Russian project, I will indicate them. The discussions were not great. Well said from the side you can see better.--Товболатов (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

1 Rosguill I got permission?--Товболатов (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that appears to be a reiteration that Courcelles (and I would say, the community more generally) wants to see examples of constructive editing, preferably on English Wikipedia, prior to the appeal of your ban. They have withdrawn the suggestion that you should be subject to an even broader ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, thanks, I'll try--Товболатов (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rosguill can't find a page to create articles without a draft. In Russian, it is immediately noticeable located on the main page on the right. I forgot where she was. You can drop the link.--Товболатов (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what you're referring to--my usual method for creating new pages is to search for the page and then click on the links at the top of search results to create the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Sorry for my disruptive nomination. I'll learn for next time on what not to do . Cheers, QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 13:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Bats people

Hello @Rosguill. How you doing? I was wondering if per WP:UNDUE I can remove this paragraph in Bats people about supposedly Georgian origin of Bats people if this theory isn't held by historians except maybe Ants Viires? In case you don't know, this is the paragraph I'm talking about:

Ants Viires also notes that there are theories involving the Bats being descended from Old Georgian tribes who adopted a Nakh language. According to this theory, the Batsbi are held to have originated from Georgian pagan tribes who fled the Christianization being implemented by the Georgian monarchy. A couple of these tribes are thought to have adopted a Nakh language as a result of contact with Nakh peoples.

So that you would have some kind of idea about this mentioned theory being viewpoint of the (very small) minority, I will cite some (Nauka published) sources of the Soviet Union period which state all the same, the Ingush origins of Bats people (I could also provide sources of the Russian Empire, however as per WP:AGE MATTERS Soviet sources seem to have more weight on this topic than the Russian Empire ones):

• Генко, А. Н. (1930). "Из культурного прошлого ингушей" [From the cultural past of the Ingush]. Записки коллегии востоковедов при Азиатском музее [Notes of the College of Orientalists at the Asian Museum] (in Russian). Vol. 5. Ленинград: Издательство Академии наук СССР. p. 698. Не вызывает никаких сомнений, что древнее цовекое наименование Цовата—Вабуа тождественно племенному названию веппинцев (совр. Форма fäppij), группировавшихся вокруг древнейшего своего центра, аула Эрзи. Чрезвычайно характерно, что последовательные этапы цовско-веппинской колонизации Алванского поля в Кахетии хронологически близки к таковой галгаев.
• Маруашвили, Л. И. (6 June 1938). "Тушетия" [Tusheti]. Вестник знания] (in Russian). No. 1. Ленинград. p. 18 (439 as PDF). Тушинцы — племя грузинского происхождения. Исключение составляют лишь так называемые „цова-тушинцы" — потомки ингушей или галгаевцев, переселившиеся в незапамятные времена из долины р. Ассы в долину Тушетской Алазани. Они до сих пор сохранили свой язык.
• Кушева, Е. Н. (1963). Народы Северного Кавказа и их связи с Россией (вторая половина XVI — 30-е годы XVII века) [The peoples of the North Caucasus and their relations with Russia (the second half of the 16th - 30s of the 17th century)] (in Russian). Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР. p. 368. Цова-тушины (Бацби), ингушское общество (...).
• Волкова, Н. Г.; Лавров, Л. И. (1968). Гарданов, В. К.; Прохоров, Е. Д.; Ефимова, А. П. (eds.). Культура и быт народов Северного Кавказа (1917—1967 гг.) (in Russian). М.: Наука. p. 342. Культура и язык бацбийцев (цова-тушины), переселившихся со своей исторической территории в Нагорной Ингушетии в Гру- зию, по-видимому, ранее XVI в. (...)
• Волкова, Н. Г. (1973). Лавров, Л. И. (ed.). Этнонимы и племенные названия Северного Кавказа [Ethnonyms and tribal names of the North Caucasus] (in Russian). Москва: Наука. p. 161. С ингушами связывается ещё одна небольшая, в настоящее время территориально оторванная от вайнахов группа, известная в литературе под именем бацбийцев или цова-тушин. В этногенетических преданиях этого народа прародину принято считать местность Вабуа, имя которой связывается с термином ваппи (фаьппи)—названием части ингушей. В связи с этим обращает на себя внимание еще один факт. Пирикитские тушины, называя всех тушин бацбийцев, выделяют из них группу с нахским языком, именнуя последних ваьппий (ед. ч. ваьппуо).
• Волкова, Н. Г. (1974). Гарданов, В. К. (ed.). Этнический состав населения Северного Кавказа в XVIII — начале XX века [Ethnic composition of the population of the North Caucasus in the 18th - early 20th centuries] (in Russian). Москва: Наука. p. 153. Переселение фаппийцев в Тушетию хронологически не определимо.
• Волкова, Н. Г. (1977). "Бацбийцы Грузии (Этнографические заметки)" [Batsbi of Georgia (Ethnographical notes)] (PDF). Советская Этнография (in Russian) (2). Москва: Наука: 84. Исключительная близость бацбийского и ингушского язы­ков достаточно убедительно свидетельствует о том, что Ингушетия — прародина бацбийцев. {{cite journal}}: soft hyphen character in |quote= at position 53 (help)

What do you think? Can I remove the paragraph? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't have much insight here. At a glance it seems like Viires, and specifically the Red Book of former Soviet ethnography seems well-regarded, although Viires specific expertise is more focused on Estonia than post-Soviet ethnography more broadly. You're within your rights as an editor to WP:BOLDly make the change you propose, as there doesn't seem to be any prior controversy relating to it on the page, but you should be prepared to make a clear case for why Viires is not DUE, and unsatisfactory arguments to that end may be taken as evidence of tendentious editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that I researched a little bit, it seems like Ants Viires isn't even the author, but one "Margus Kolga" on whom I can't find any information which makes me wonder more of reliability of the book (See the author in Google Books, www.eki.ee). Furthermore, the chapter "Bats" mentions theory of Bats coming from Pankisian Kists, when this theory isn't mentioned by any authorative scholars like N. G. Volkova. Really, where did Marcus Kolga get this theory from? The neighboring Pirikitsian Tushetians refer to Bats as Vyappiy (Fyappiy), the Tsovata is named Vabua/Vadua in Bats which itself corresponds to the name "Fyappiy". Both the legends of Bats and Ingush state the same, that the Bats came from the region Vabua to Georgia and originate from the Fyappiy. This opinion is held by many doctors of historical sciences like the above mentioned A. N. Genko and L. I. Lavrov and the famous kavkazoved N. G. Volkova. I could top this up with DNA testings which shows connections of Bats with Ingush surnames like the Yandievs, Torshkhoevs and others, but I don't know how to cite them in the article and I think secondary sources are needed for them. I assume this is enough to remove that "theory", held by literally nobody else. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that among those arguments, the most important ones are the lack of support for the claim in other, authoritative sources and the lack of established credentials for the author. Bringing in genetics or folkloric evidence is going to turn it into an OR fight _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Duncan Lemp

Can I ask you to cast your eye over these edits (since reverted) [5] and [6] by new user Sylviaplacid (talk · contribs). Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE, they're either trying to defame this person by way of impersonation or they have a very strange sense of self-promotion. Either way, the possibility that they would ever contribute productively seems vanishingly small. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It just didn't sit right. Plus they used the last name Kemp not Lemp in their edit summary. Thanks for sorting it out. Knitsey (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Rosguill, I received an invite to look at NPP and would like to do this. I have some work to do to go through the tutorial however if I apply and am accepted then initially would like a mentor to 'review the reviewer' so to speak and get started on the right foot. Happy to do the 'school' bit however not sure how you structure that. Please let me know if this would work for you. Neils51 (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Neils51, typically NPPSCHOOL is for editors who don't quite yet qualify for the permission outright. Similarly, we already have a "review the reviewer" process for new NPP editors in the form of 1-month trial runs. Thus, I would recommend going ahead and applying at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and the reviewing admin will recommend an appropriate course of action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

How did you know?

How did you know Joseph Whitley was mechanical engineer and metallurgist and shot by his son? Vwqvj qwhiu (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you not read the source you cited? [7]. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No i didn't, I just copied source from Sarah Whitley lol Vwqvj qwhiu (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

MCU Pages

Hello, I'm writing because we've got a really awkward situation with a lot of MCU pages, particularly as some members of the taskforce will refuse any edits made, even those not under current discussion unless consensus is reached. Now, if you look at the talkpage on some of these articles, you'll realize there is a lot there. We have been completely unable to proceed with some matters, even those with consensus, and while I do intend to open an RFC for that, I've found myself struggling to make any edit at all because some members of the taskforce are exhibiting acts of Ownership. This in particular is an example, as my edit (which was not really related to a matter of discussion on the talk page) was reverted and I was sent a message on my talkpage informing me I can't make any edit (and accusing me of edit-warring) until the conversation is done. Could you take a closer look at the situation and let me know what you think? The relevant pages are as follows (including their talk pages!):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helstrom_(TV_series) NOTE: There is no current dispute on this page, however the talk page provides a lot of context for what we are dealing with now.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_into_Fear_(franchise)

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel%27s_Netflix_television_series

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

Thank you, ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

While you may have a point about underlying ownership issues, the presence of recent edit warring from you is enough to muddy the case and I would not expect pressing the issue to be worth your time. I think the best path forward is to try to move towards the RfC; if you run into cases of potential OWN violations in the future, I would recommend that you disengage and consider reporting it to ANI only if repeated on multiple further occasions, as that is likely the level of evidence needed to persuasively make your case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand. I will take this approach. I sometimes struggle when it comes to edit warring on these particular pages because, and this is what's happened with my most recent edits, either we have reached consensus, or people perform ownership such as the edit I showed you earlier where a good-faith edit was blocked, with it being falsely stated that the phrasing was being discussed on the talk page. As you can surmise from the conversation itself, it wasn't. Would you say that the other people who are blocking edits under OWN are also edit warring, or am I uniquely accountable for that? ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, typically, and the degree of fault is murky due to all the background that you've identified. Ultimately it seems like everyone involved is here in good faith, and that the amount of work it would take for uninvolved editors to get to the bottom of this is far greater than the severity of any of the crimes, so to speak, which is why I'm against bringing this to ANI and declining to investigate thoroughly myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

NPPSCHOOL inquiry

Hi Rosguill, I'm aware that you have had to decline several editors who have recently asked about participating in NPP school. I just wanted to express my interest as well so that if and when you have availability, I might be considered. (I see that a few new trainers have been newly added, but I think I would prefer the long-form curriculum that some of them don't use, so asking here first.) Thanks, —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi PlanetJuice, unfortunately I don't foresee being able to take on any students this year at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. No worries. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

User

Hello. Can you take a look at this? A non-extended confirmed user keeps making edits to Armenia-Azerbaijan topics after being notified of the extended-confirmed requirement by two different people. It looks like he is currently making random edits to reach 500 edits. NMW03 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This user is now asking other editors in the topic if they have Discord to message. Google translation of what he said: "Do you have Discord or something like that, can I run with you? I have many hearts to give you" NMW03 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely, as not only is there the apparent gaming behavior that you pointed out, it's almost all to pages still covered by GS/AA so it's ALSO a violation of that. I'd be open to them being unblocked on the condition of a topic ban, but given that they clearly don't understand how topic bans work I think that this step should come only after they've explained themselves. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. This and this user are creating articles and making edits about Armenia after being warned ([8]) about extended-confirmed restriction. NMW03 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither of these two editors had been given a {{alert/first}} warning, so I'm not jumping to a block just yet. I've placed CTOPs warnings for both editors; in the case of Samvel Khuspov, it's a final warning regarding GS/AA compliance before blocks. For LewonK, I don't see any GS/AA violations (or edits at all) since your warning, and their focus seems a bit broader topically, so they have a bit more rope left. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

LewonK has made 17 edits since my warning, all to the Tigranes Invasion of Sophene (94 BC) (article about Armenian history) and Fight for Karabakh (1918-1919) (article about an Armenian-Azerbaijani battle) articles. How are they not violations? Also, it's weird that three new users all made edits to this new article that only has one article linking to it. I'm suspecting sock or meatpuppetry going on here. View on Interaction Timeline. NMW03 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about that. I think I may have pulled up the wrong contribs page by accident. And they've now continued past my warning. I'm tied up in a meeting at the moment but once I'm free I'll address this again, and it's looking like it's time for a short block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Samvel continues editing Azerbaijan/Armenia-related articles even after receiving a warning. Also, one of the three new users who edited the newly created article Tigranes Invasion of Sophene (94 BC) by Samvel, (Georgian person) blanked the article in the same way as Samvel did. I think this provides sufficient evidence of potential meatpuppetry. NMW03 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, Special:Diff/1170080542 by Samvel is obviously inappropriate battleground behavior, on top of all of the more mundane rule-breaking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Another one. This user has made 3 edits to this topic after my warning. For example: [9] NMW03 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another and another NMW03 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The former's violation is less egregious so I left a second warning there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

[10] NMW03 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. LewonK on YT is active again on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic after warnings and week-long block from you. NMW03 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Danielle Vasinova

I feel this AFD should have at minimum closed as No Consensus. We had 4 deletes and 4 keeps. One Delete was very suspicious from an IP. The subject has many citations, some are in depth and also even if not she meets WP:BASIC which states that if not enough in depth articles, they can be combined to meet notability. In addition, the subject was on cover 3-4 magazines with coverage within the magazines as well. What would be the process to have another admin look at this? Naomijeans (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Naomijeans, you can take it to WP:DRV, although I think the argument you make here is overly focused on vote-counting rather than the strength of arguments and their basis in existing policy and guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not aware of that process. I will post a message there. I am aware that the decision is not just based on vote counting, but still feel the subject met notability. Naomijeans (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Danielle Vasinova

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Danielle Vasinova. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomijeans (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for admin action

Per Extraordinary Writ's talk page header announcing a few weeks off-project, I randomly selected you as an active admin who might be able to take action on editing restriction violations. EW was the notifying admin on the restriction, so I posted the matter to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Achar Sva editing restriction violation but did not receive any admin action in a day and some change. I previously tried two other active admins, but received no prompt response. If you are not able to or do not wish to respond to this discussion, please let me know and I'll pick another name out of the admin hat. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this in the next 24 hours. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. No hurry; I only wanted to ensure someone saw it while the actions involved were still vaguely relevant. I will be generally available again in 8ish hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at it quickly, these seem like pretty clear-cut violations of the topic ban. My guess is that admins may have avoided the ANI thread in order to give Achar Sva time to respond; in the absence of other Wikipedia editing since the thread was opened, I'd consider giving nearly a week of grace period before taking action in absentia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your discretion. Achar Sva has made many good-faith edits that don't violate the restriction, so the grace period is appreciated. I'll ping you if nothing is said in the next five and a half days. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey! The ANI for this topic has been archived with no actions taken. Should I add another notice to Achar Sva's talk page to give them another notice that they need to comment in the next few days to avoid sanction? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history, almost all of their work has been on weekends, so I'm inclined to wait until Monday. I don't think a further notification would be useful or necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds great; I again appreciate the discretionary hold on sanctions. I'm helping a family member move so I may be on-project only briefly through the next three to four days, so I apologize if I don't immediately respond should I be asked to comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, no response (nor edits) from AS since 27 July. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please have a look at this anon user

Special:Contributions/38.124.33.141 - he (or she) slowly goes through (mostly) Afro-related articles and removes information he (or she) doesn't seem to like. He caught my attention yesterday, when I was investigating who removed information from Electro (music) infobox. Turned out it was him: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electro_(music)&diff=prev&oldid=1159538050 (without explanation and contrary to what article says itself). So I decided to keep an eye on him, as many of his recent edits are unexplained removal of text and images, and were reverted, but, surprisingly, he seems to fly under radar perfectly well. Today I saw that he again removed some text from yet another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro-Venezuelans&diff=prev&oldid=1168456354, and again hasn't explained anything. 178.121.7.236 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think that your warnings are an adequate intervention. If the problematic editing continues without engaging the criticism then there will be a clear-cut case for a communication is required block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirect Wrong person

I intend to reach out to Wikipedia to clarify the usage of my artist name "ADOM." It appears to be linked in a manner that suggests an affiliation with "BOSTON" or Anton Cosmo, which is inaccurate.False information. If this matter is not promptly addressed, we may need to initiate an internal inquiry. This situation is directly impacting my visibility on Google search results and my current career. ACmuisc (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

ACmuisc You are allowed to request a review of the redirect outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adom (artist) at WP:DRV, although you are unlikely to get much headway there as the discussion is very one-sided. You can also request that the redirect be deleted entirely by nominating it for WP:RFD. I've left a conflict of interest notice on your talk page, which you should review carefully before making further edits or inquiries related to yourself. Further, generally speaking, hostile legalese like If this matter is not promptly addressed, we may need to initiate an internal inquiry, especially when coming from an editor with a clear COI, will result in most of the Wikipedia community slamming the metaphorical door in your face, so I'd recommend striking a more appropriate tone when making further inquiries. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer tool bar

Greetings,

I have recently been granted the role of a New Page Reviewer. However, after a few days, the page curation toolbar, which I have been utilizing to review articles, suddenly disappeared. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to reinstate the toolbar. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated, as the absence of this toolbar hinders my ability to effectively review pages.

Thank you for your attention to this concern.

Sincerely, ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

TheChunky, Wikipedia tool bugs aren't really my wheelhouse, unfortunately. On the permissions end you still have the +npr flag and it's set to not expire. If you can reproduce the bug in another browser as well (which would suggest it's a problem with Wikipedia rather than your browser/computer), I'd post about it at WT:NPR so that editors more involved with the software end of things can help out. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok will check on another browser and let you know. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not Sure

Hi, I have seen a newbie admin Ingenuity granted NPP rights to Oaktree b with such a poor Afd match rate of 69%, I am not sure that this decision was appropriate. You can check the AFD log of the concerned user for poor match rate, where many of his/ her nominated article got kept. Need your attention here. Okoslavia (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Okoslavia, how are you arriving at the 69% match rate figure? Looking at the first three pages of their AfD stats report, I see 80.3%, 82.1%, and 83.6%. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It is 68.6 https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Oaktree+b&max=&startdate=&altname=&nomsonly=true Okoslavia (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a nomination match rate, not a participation match rate, and is always going to be lower. This is the page I was looking at. Typically the cutoff for AfD participation match rates is low 70s. You're also looking at the number without discounting no consensus results, instead of excluding them (a more meaningful number), which results in 71.2% for your search. At any rate, the bigger issue is always going to be: are their arguments reasonable? Do they engage with evidence? Rather than their straw poll statistic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's also really weird to accuse Ingenuity of being a rookie admin when they've been an admin for nearly as long as you've been editing... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Okoslavia: You said your peace on the perm application, which was unnecessary, and you should leave it at that. There's no need to try to get the permission removed when it won't affect you. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh It is matter of the community trust. NPP is not a joke. We need admin like competency for it as far as I have learnt in this few days. I am really concerned about the match rate of his/her nomination. In many cases he/she clearly do not understand what notability is. Okoslavia (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill requesting you to relook on some of their afd nominations where there was clear keep, which is making me unsure that they don't understand what notability is. I will really respect your opinion and if everything is fine I am happy to drop the stick. Okoslavia (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at several most recent AfDs started by Oaktree b that ended in keep, I mostly saw cases where more sources were found in the course of discussion, or where they presented plausible arguments against the reliability of borderline sources. To make a persuasive case for your point, I'd want to see either an AfD where they reiterated a delete !vote after sources that clearly established notability were presented, argued a clearly incorrect interpretation of policy, or a much lower overall AfD match rate. My guess is that there's more valuable uses for your time editing something. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Okoslavia: Provide a clear example instead of being vague. Your only example thus far has been to point to their percentage of nominations that matched the outcome. What is it that you think Ingenuity missed when doing their assessment? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Zepotha

Is it worth posting on one of the boards (I'm not sure which) that this hoax is currently doing the rounds on tictok. It's up for deletion but has been created a couple to times today. As you can see on the history, there are a few newly registered editors involved. Knitsey (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted that page, but I'm not sure I follow the full extent of the pages involved. I take it this is a poor imitation of Goncharov (1973)? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zepotha3 which I think is all the centralized attention it needs. If you see any new copies pop up, tag for deletion as hoaxes WP:G3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That's great, and yes it's been mentioned in connection to Goncharov (1973). Thanks for your quick action. Knitsey (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

yeah. there should be a page for it that says that it's a hoax like goncharov -jakeyounglol (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Rosguill is right, maybe not giving it the attention hoaxers want means people will eventually move on and forget about it. I've been reporting via CSD when I see it. Knitsey (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If it becomes notable by getting coverage in independent, reliable sources it'll get an article. Until then, it's just a hoax. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. I wanted to upload image of Nureddin Akhriev from this article under fair use, similarly how this file was uploaded. But I don't know how to do this, could you please help me out? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 so, this isn't really my area of expertise, but I can share my understanding of the situation. N.b. File:Rashid-bek Chakhovich Akhriev.jpg is actually not uploaded with the correct permissions: as written, it claims a case of valid non-free use for identification purposes in his biography. However, as an image of a deceased individual created more than 70 years ago, it should now be fully in the public domain (in both the US and elsewhere).

Now, for Nureddin Akhriev, he died less than 70 years ago, so the image is not in the public domain in the US yet (although it is public domain under Russian and former Soviet law, which specifies death of creator + 25 years). Note as well that it's actually the death of the photographer that we are supposed to be following, not the death of the subject, but regardless the image appears to be less than 70 years old. Consequently, for this one you should be able to claim valid non-free fair use. You can proceed to Wikipedia:File upload wizard, select "Upload a non-free file", and select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." From there on out, it should be fairly straightforward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Review of EMY Africa Awards Page

Currently, the article with name EMY Awards Africa has been soft deleted and after reviewing, the reasons given are lack of significant coverage to establish its notability. Due to the information gathered during my research both internal and external, I went ahead to create subpages as seen for several notable awards scheme and still working on the page even though a deletion discussion is ongoing. I would like to have access to the article to furnish the page with the requisite sources and evidence that establishes his notability. Siagoddess (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that this actually wasn't a soft deletion and the verifiability, neutrality, and promotionalism issues for most of the text in the deleted article, I'm going to meet you halfway and bring back the sources from the article here. You should be aware that this set of sources was not enough to sway people at this past AfD, so a case for notability purely based on these sources is unlikely to be well-received; I would encourage you to review WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, and critically examine the extent to which these sources are reliable and independent of EMY Awards. Other editors will expect coverage that discusses the history and significance of the awards in a sober manner, that provides more analysis and detail than a simple list of winners but which also steers clear of empty, ebullient praise like [EMY] is dedicated to honouring remarkable African men and personalities for their exceptional accomplishments, substantial contributions, and inspirational endeavours that foster positive change across the continent and beyond. Other editors will also be highly suspicious of pieces that are published without bylines, or with collective bylines like "Pulse Mix", "Staff", etc. as these are typically signs of a syndicated press release, rather than independent coverage.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I finally finished the section on my NPP school page

Hey! I know it's been almost a year since I started and you're no longer taking new students. I'm sorry for taking so long, and I understand if you don't want to finish. Happy editing! Asparagusus (interaction) 13:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot a section and need a bit to finish, sorry! Asparagusus (interaction) 19:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now finished, really sorry about that! Asparagusus (interaction) 20:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Serious issues

Hello Rosguill,

User NMW03 removed the neutral WP:POV of several articles by removing scare quotes and other expressions of doubt,[11][12][13] when the cited sources themselves use quotes and expressions of doubt.[14][15] Even after the due weight was explained to NMW03, they began edit warring to continuing pushing this false weight[16][17] and never replied to the talk page discussion about removing sourced quotes. Not only has NMW03 previously removed scare quotes to push an undue pro-Azerbaijan narrative, they are now hypocritically adding scare quotes to push an undue pro-Azerbaijan narrative. The existence of a humanitarian crisis is well sourced, yet NMW03 removed most of this part and reduced it to: what has been described as a "humanitarian crisis", and completely removed that "imports of essential goods have been blocked". NMW03 also added original research by writing "Azerbaijan relaxed the blockade" for a source that only mentioned "signs of possible easing; the blockade is still very much ongoing but a reader would be left with the impression this isn't the case.

Isn't this type of explicit soapboxing and battleground mentality what stricter AA3 sanctions were allowed for? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, please note that almost all of these points were already discussed in a recent AE report where Kevo327 brought them up. Two admins agreed that there was nothing sanctionable and closed the report with no action taken. Actually, he was warned for very similar behavior less than a week ago as a result of another report. @Callanecc: you may want to take a look. And for the record, the quotes around humanitarian crisis were not scare quotes, but actual quotes that were grammatically required because before it, I say "has been described as". NMW03 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The diffs of you removing the scare quotes are before the AE report, after which you proceeded to hypocritically add scare quotes when no recent sources used them. And the article previously had no expressions of doubt for the humanitarian crisis, being called such by multiple sources. You adding expressions of doubt like “has been described as” was POV pushing. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but as can probably be guessed by my recent editing history, I do not have the time to even begin to address the above. Please direct concerns to AE. I might end up addressing it there, but I can't focus on editing with this unresolved on my talk page and I do not wish to give it such high priority at this time. I expect my workload to be back to normal in two months or so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Kevo327: if you have concerns about NMW03's editing you need to create an AE request. That AE request needs to have very recent examples, not repeat what has already been raised at AE and dismissed, and be clearly explained with reference to the policies (etc) being breached. Posting in other places (obviously with exemptions) about editor conduct within this contentious topic is not helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @Callanecc. Thank you for the suggestion. NMW03 himself reports many users in this same page User_talk:Rosguill#User so I assumed it was alright to report a recent problematic diff of NMW, from after the previous AE discussion. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Rita Payés

Hello Rosguill, I noticed that you are included in Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers with language specialties, so I thought it might be okay to ask you to have a look at the German and Spanish sources in Draft:Rita Payés (d:Q72264919). I'd be inclined to clean-up a few odds and sods myself and accept the draft (it seems that a lot has been improved since it was declined back in April), but my understanding of German and Spanish (or Catalan, for that matter) is not good enough to verify the refs. [NB: The stated reason for initially declining the article was lack of notability, but that seems not to be the case as both Payés and her mother Elisabeth Roma (d:Q113500408) appear to be quite famous in music circles (see this and this). Apologies if my request is outside of the intent of the "Reviewers with language specialties" list. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, I think the article is ready to promote: about a third of the sources lack clear bylines and/or seem to be routine announcements of concerts rather than SIGCOV, but the rest of the coverage (especially in Spanish and Catalan) has more heft and gets us to GNG I think. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for having a look. I might try to pare back some of the most egregious non-SIGCOV overcite and then take care of the AFC review later today or tomorrow. (I was initially served the draft by the "random AFC" algorithm, but was knocked-out by the music – I must say.) I'll probably do a quick stub on the mother too at some point, if somebody doesn't get there first.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done (Thanks again for your help!) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability tag

I saw you tagged TBS (Latin American TV channel) after reviewing it. Could you review TNT Novelas? It’s even less notable as it only has a few months from its first air date and was created upon the TBS article since it was its replacement after that version of TBS was terminated. MexTDT (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)