User talk:Rosguill/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Religion in Egypt

Hi I am a student undergoing phd studies my edit has supporting information and why I deleted pie chart as in being logic with ranges and the references I use as in opinions is from an expert scholar in Middle Eastern studies and why my edit should be kept as your information editing or back up is not logic and unfair to be kept on the topic as it contradicts with adequate fair information based on education and expertise of others and along with making sense a pie chart shouldn’t be used in ranges unless single data range not ranges. So in regards to realism and adequateness and limiting bias from other editors I have explained why my edit should remain as I and minimising propaganda and bias from editors as these references are legit from qualified experts I have used for my edit realistically by saying there opinion not biased misinformation from editors as explained that contradict with realism. Hmkfbl (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmkfbl, changes very similar to the ones you are proposing have been suggested before and rejected following discussion at Talk:Religion in Egypt. Please read through the past discussions, particularly Talk:Religion_in_Egypt#Saynotobiasim's_comment and Talk:Religion_in_Egypt#My_edit_has_recent_information_to_back_my_edit. If you have additional arguments to make following the consideration of those points, please raise them in a new section on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've indeffed Hmkfbl, but I wondered if you thought that Hmkfbl and Masrialltheway are the same person?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23, it's not inconceivable, but given their focus on different parts of the page it wasn't my first guess: the page has been home to two long-running edit wars, one over the number of Copts (primarily concerning lead materials), and another regarding the interpretation of statistics regarding "irreligion" vs "atheism" (primarily in the body of the article). Still, there's enough of an overlap in MO that a CU may be worthwhile. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportskeeda

Any objection if I restore this to draftspace at Draft:Nazara Technologies and see if I can't work something up there? BD2412 T 03:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, I see the discussion a few spots up the page. BD2412 T 03:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Work instruction for deciding whether to grant NPP

Hello friend. I am thinking about eventually helping with WP:PERM/NPP requests, and I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer/Administrator instructions and make sure it's still mostly correct and aligns with your workflow. I'd like to copy your workflow closely so that I don't accidentally let through someone I shouldn't. Thanks for all the work you do at WP:PERM/NPP :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, those instructions still look pretty good to me. The only additional advice I'd add would be to check the history of their talk page for anything sneaky, to check for hat-collecting behavior (especially at autopatrol and AfC) and to let valid requests sit open for a few days to allow for other editors who may have had bad interactions with an applicant to chime in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Why was the GPY sieve page again marked as "unreviewed"?

Hello, why did you mark the page Goldston-Pintz-Yıldırım sieve again as unreviewed? Some user marked it before as reviewed, so I assume it was reviewed (maybe not mathematically since the topic is only for mathematicians in that field).--Tensorproduct (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Tensorproduct, unfortunately, the first reviewer had the reviewer permission on a provisional basis, and I had to remove it due to a high rate of bad reviews. Consequently, I unreviewed most of the articles they reviewed, including Goldston-Pintz-Yıldırım sieve; this is not a reflection of the article's quality and I apologize for thee confusion. It will be reviewed again by someone else, likely sooner than the first time around because it will be placed in the queue based on the date it was originally created, not the date it was unreviewed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 09:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification, I thought there was some issue with the article itself.--Tensorproduct (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, I also have a question regarding the reviewing process of mathematics articles. Are reviewers only checking whether the articles satisfy the Wikipedia rules? Or are there actually mathematicians here that review them? I am an author from the German Wikipedia (I have written 140+ mathematics articles there) and there we have a "quality assurance" page on the mathematics portal where new math articles are displayed. Here I could not find that on the Portal:Mathematics page. Thanks for an answer. Best--Tensorproduct (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Tensorproduct, the review process for new articles on en.wiki is WP:NPP--we're primarily looking to make sure that the subject meets notability guidelines and to tag the article for neutrality, copy editing, or original research issues if need be. For a mathematics article, we're mostly going to be looking to make sure that the article's subject has been discussed by papers beyond the paper that initially introduced it, by academics independent of the original author's research group. It's possible that WP:Wikiproject Mathematics may have additional review processes, but I'm not familiar with them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Have a nice day.--Tensorproduct (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, sorry for disturbing you again, but I have another question. I have written some articles which some reviewer tagged with the "improve category" template. Has this any impact on the reviewing proces like for example that the article does not get approved before the template is removed?

I think all these edits are wrong because I obviously tried my best to find the most specific categories (unless I somehow missed them). Lots of the articles I write are advanced mathematics (obviously otherwise there would already exist such an article) so specific categories do not yet exist.--Tensorproduct (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Tensorproduct, an article will not be rejected for lack of categories, rather, the intent is to flag the article as needing help from someone more familiar with category assignments and adding it to a relevant work queue. I'm not much of a category expert, and much less one for advanced mathematics, so I'm not much of a judge for whether there in fact are additional categories to be added, but I can assure you that it's not something that is going to reflect badly upon you or the article in the slightest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response! I did not want to remove the tag, since I thought it was valid for the future, when there are more articles. But I also didn't saw any more specific categories that would fit right now, so it was also inappropriate to me. Thank you very much for the answer, have a nice day.--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability for Saint Louis Billikens softball

Hello again. I recently saw your notability tag for the Saint Louis Billikens softball article that I was the primary editor of. I did some researching on Newspapers.com and attempted to add some additional sourcing to create a stronger sense of notoriety but have no idea if the sources I added did anything to help in that area. I am humbly asking if you could take a look at the page again and let me know if anything I added benefited towards gaining notability or if there is still work to be done (I feel as though it's the latter, but wanted to ask anyway.)

I also did a little work on the Saint Joseph's Hawks softball page but I don't think it's worth looking over. As for the Rhode Island Rams softball page that you tagged differently, does that tag mean that the article meets the criteria for notability, or that it does not at the moment but the sourcing is out there? I am open to suggestions on ways I can expand the article passed what is currently written as I know it's still pretty bare bones. I am also open to additional websites or search engines that can be used to find sourcing such as Newspapers.com. I hadn't heard of that before I saw your edit summary and it is definitely a big help going forward. Google's search engine is only so helpful before it spits me game log articles and nothing else which is not good for notoriety. I will say I am a bit hesitant in continuing to work on pages until I can resolve these three articles. Thanks for any help you can give this editor. Mannytool (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Mannytool, looking at Saint Louis Billikens softball, I'd say that the additional sources you found are exactly the kind of coverage that establishes notability: coverage of the program and/or the team's competitive prospects in newspapers not directly affiliated with the university or league (going the extra mile, the ideal, perfect notability-establishing source would be the same kind of coverage in a paper with national circulation; regional papers outside the team's hometown are also a step up from local).

In the case of the Rhode Island Rams, there I was able to find a fair amount of additional coverage online in a quick google search (IIRC, it was essentially thanks to the awards their program has won, although it is the coverage produced by the awards and not the awards themselves that make the difference).

I think you're on the right track as it is, and many thanks for the additional work you've done. The one other bit of advice I can offer, if you're not aware of it already, is that you can get a free subscription to Newspapers.com, as well as many academic databases, through the WP:Wikipedia Library. I'd also recommend swapping out the AWS PDF hosting URLs for whatever the URL is for the page you used to find said documents, as the latter will preserve more metadata that future editors and readers can use to recover the source if the file location ever changes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Hello administrator, have a nice day, and sorry for the disturbance. Please if possible check out these two articles I've created Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati on the notice board [A]. Again sorry if I made mistake by posting here don't consider it as a spam as not familiar with right way to ask about this type issues. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sportskeeda

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sportskeeda. 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. Desertarun (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

NPP school

Hey, do you have any NPP school spots open, as shown on the school page? Thanks! Karnataka (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Karnataka, I'm currently traveling and there's a few students who are potentially waiting for a spot once I'm back to being able to take on students. I'd suggest that you look for another mentor, or check back in a few weeks if no one else is available at the moment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Redirect help

Hello, I have reviewed Chongar Strait redirect. It was result of a page move. Should I replace {{R from move}} redirect category with {{R from alternative name}} or keep both? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

DreamRimmer, I would keep both there _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fyappiy

Hello @Rosguill. I have a question regarding article titles. Fyappiy are commonly known in Russian reliable sources as фяппинцы, фаппийцы, фаппинцы and феппинцы, while in English sources (and these are few) they are known as Feappi. My only issue with this is that the English sources aren't really reliable, contain a lot of misinformation (if needed I can demonstrate them) and they're basically copypastes of a single source, one Rixman's book from 1980. Nevertheless, should I still insist on naming the article as Feappi as per WP:COMMONNAME? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is a function of source quality IMO--if the English sources using "Feappi" are categorically inferior to the Russian ones, I would recommend sticking to a transliteration of the more reputable Russian sources. Further points in favor of this approach are that 1) this English name is obviously derived from the same name with a minor spelling change (unlike say, China vs. Zhongguo or Iroquois vs. Haudenosaunee) and 2) even the English name of "Feappi" is itself extremely obscure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If I use the Russian transliteration, it wouldn't be great idea to write Fyappins instead of Fyappintsy? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Oo, that makes it tricky. It might be worth checking how they write the adjectival, rather than demonymic, form (eg, how would they write фяп__ая культура?). But at the end of the day, for a topic as obscure as this in both the English and Russian speaking worlds, as long as you’re consistent within and across Wikipedia articles you’re ok. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes

• Pppery
• Theleekycauldron

• Dwheeler
• G.A.S
• Royalbroil
• Ssd

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to discuss with you

Hi @Rosguill, It has been nearly two months since the imposition of the t-ban subsequent to the ANI thread you initiated. The community showed support for the sanction, which is understandable. If I were in their position, I would also support the sanction due to the non-impartial nature of the ANI thread you initiated (condemning only one side of the conflict). However, that is not the main point I want to discuss with you. What I want to address is the actual sanction itself. Do you not realize that the sanction was quite harsh and unjust? I mean, what is the purpose of being banned from every single page within the Moroccan, Algerian, and Western Saharan topics? This includes even the articles where my edits were constructive. It's hard to accept! I can comprehend being banned or blocked from the specific articles or pages where my edits were seen as disruptive, but being excluded from an entire topic that comprises hundreds or maybe thousands of articles is completely unfair. I urge you to reconsider the situation. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia works: demonstrate inability to conform to project standards and you will find yourself banned from very broad swathes of the project until you can demonstrate your ability to comply. If you were appealing your TBAN on the back of hundreds of productive edits that demonstrate your ability to work well with others in other topic areas, we'd be having a different conversation right now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill, I'm uncertain about the specific achievement you expect me to accomplish through my edits. Since the t-ban was imposed, I have made over 200 edits. Please feel free to check my contributions history. In the best-case scenario, assuming I haven't lost my desire to edit forever, I will continue with the same pattern of edits for the next six months consistently.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why I must adhere to a six-month waiting period. Why not one year? Why not two months? What is the rationale behind this "six months" rule? It appears to be merely a bureaucratic tradition among administrators. WP:UNBAN does not provide any guidance on the duration I should wait before appealing the t-ban.

I am willing to expand and create articles within the scope of my t-ban. If there is any accomplishment I can achieve, it will undoubtedly be in the topic that interests me the most. Therefore, I implore you not to kill this enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia.

Also could you please answer my questions above regarding the sanction itself? I am really in need of your answers at this moment. SimoooIX (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding what efforts would convince the community to lift the ban: creating well-written, well-resourced articles from scratch (or otherwise adding significant amounts of well-researched and written material), and/or engaging in talk page discussions in a thoughtful manner conducive to the formation of consensus. What I see in your track record is gnoming and antivandalism--which isn't bad, but it doesn't demonstrate that you are a valuable asset to the project, and frankly, that's what you need to demonstrate here to get people to support your appeal.

Don't fixate on six months. Your ban is indefinite, which in the context of a community topic ban means that the editing community does not ever expect you to be able to come back to that topic. You have the ability to appeal out of the community's sense of fairness, but that's not the same thing as being entitled or expecting the ban to be removed. You are expected to wait a long amount of time between these sorts of appeals, the length of time that can plausibly accompany genuine character growth and a significant change in attitude from the editor in question. Further, the general, most lenient interpretation of tban violations is that your ban resets every time you violate it, eventually resulting in you being blocked for good if you can't follow it. At the moment, I'd say you're closer to being blocked than to getting the ban appealed: waiting a long, long time is what should reasonably expected of you at this time, and your impatience is a point against you.

Regarding the ban, I think it was fair and necessary. You mispresented sources and repeatedly doubled down on them when challenged, all while engaging in a generally hostile back and forth with other editors. You have shown yourself to have a strong emotional stake in the topics the ban covers, and that this stake has already affected the quality of your editing. The ban is needed to protect articles from sloppiness, and to protect other editors from tendentious arguments. Further, I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish by asking me what I think of the ban: I proposed it, of course I agree with it. If you want an opinion on whether it’s fair go ask someone else. Asking me to comment on the ban’s “fairness”, when no editor other than you has challenged it, is tantamount to asking me to insult you, because it necessarily means that I will restate the low standard of conduct that I believe merits a ban. In a similar vein, if I was an uninvolved editor evaluating someone else’s unban request, I would definitely not want to see them posting paragraphs demanding explanations on the talk pages of the editors that proposed banning them. This isn’t a question of fairness or “I’m right you’re wrong”, it’s a question of whether your edits demonstrate that you can focus on constructive contributions instead of relitigating old arguments. Even if I was 100% wrong to propose the original ban, arguing over it here is still the incorrect move from you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So essentially, you're requesting me to edit at an editorial level that surpasses the average editors on Wikipedia. Can this article that I created be considered as such kind of 'efforts'? I am aware that it has some flaws that need to be fixed and it still has room for expansion. It is truly disheartening that I am unable to address these issues due to the t-ban.

"You have shown yourself to have a strong emotional stake in the topics the ban covers, and that this stake has already affected the quality of your editing." Not really. While I can comprehend being banned or blocked from specific pages where my edits were deemed disruptive, do you have any notion of the vastness of the topic you have proposed for my ban? This was, in fact, my main question from the beginning.

Also "Asking me to comment on the ban’s “fairness”, when no editor other than you has challenged it, is tantamount to asking me to insult you" Wow, what a beautiful and civilized comment coming from an admin, thank you for that. But i'm not surprised though, you've already expressed that you have no problem if another editor assumed bad faith on me (despite WP:GOODFAITH) SimoooIX (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol school

Hello! I was wondering if you have any spaces open for students for the New pages patrol school. Cheers, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Grumpylawnchair, unfortunately now is not a good time for me due to other commitments. Perhaps in a few weeks, but I would recommend that you try to find another instructor in the meantime. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your time! Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gary Hugh Brown 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 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Switzerland on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 10 September 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)

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)

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)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rolf Harris 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 00:31, 19 September 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)

Killing of Duncan Lemp

Can I ask you to cast your eye over these edits (since reverted) [1] and [2] 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)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Rosguill,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 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)

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? [3]. _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)