User talk:Rosguill

ImportGenius Notability Tag

Hey, hoping this isn't weird. I've been working on that ImportGenius article, mostly because the IPhone redirect didn't make too much sense considering the more recent press coverage related to the war between Russia and Ukraine. It seems that they're infrequently the sole focus of an article, but they're often the sole source of data and/or analysis mentioned in the article.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chinese-drones-still-support-russias-war-in-ukraine-trade-data-show-cd39d40b https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/business/economy/russia-airlines-sanctions-ukraine.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/russian-gold-is-in-hands-of-obscure-firms-as-jpmorgan-hsbc-exit Just to assess, do you think these articles are noteworthy in relation to ImportGenius? I don't think the inclusion of them as a source is trivial in the recent coverage, the content seems non-routine and independent. Any thoughts? I'll keep editing the article for now but I'd like to know what you think about the notability here.

Finbee (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Finbee, no problem (although typically new discussions go at the bottom of the page). Unfortunately, I hit a paywall for those sources and can't evaluate them so I'm not much use here. If you can quote some relevant parts I can give an opinion though. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Dozens of logistics firms and merchants that are small players in the gold sector have since taken over the Russian bullion trade, according to data from trade-tracking firm ImportGenius based on Russian customs figures for six months through August. And instead of massive shipments going to London to sit in vaults of top bullion banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and HSBC Holdings Plc, Russian supplies are heading piecemeal to places like the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong and Turkey, where there are no restrictions. (...) The gap left has been filled by companies like VPower Finance Security (Hong Kong) Ltd., which says it moves cash and gold for some of China’s biggest banks. It handled more than $300 million of Russian gold shipments through Hong Kong in March through August 2022, ImportGenius data show. (...)Turkey has become another key destination, with about $305 million of Russian gold passing through Istanbul airport in the March-August period, ImportGenius data show." - From the Bloomberg article.

"The data, which was compiled and analyzed by Import Genius, a U.S.-based trade data aggregator, shows that tens of millions of dollars of aircraft parts were sent to Russian airlines explicitly facing sanctions by the Biden administration, including to Rossiya Airlines, Aeroflot, Ural Airlines, S7 Airlines, Utair Aviation and Pobeda Airlines.(...) The shipments also increased over the course of last year as Russia recruited global businesses to help it bypass the sanctions. The trend suggests that “networks for evading sanctions took time to establish during the immediate post-export-control scramble but are now in a position to help Russian airlines source some key parts,” said William George, the director of research at Import Genius. (...) Half a dozen export control lawyers and former government officials consulted by The New York Times said that many of the shipments in the Import Genius data likely violated sanctions, but that plane makers like Boeing or Airbus were not necessarily at fault. The aviation supply chain is complex and global, and the parts could have come from a variety of sources. " - The New York Times one

"More than a year after Western authorities sought to shut down the pipeline supplying Russia in its war in Ukraine, exports of small, nimble Chinese drones are still providing the Kremlin with an effective way to target Ukrainian forces, according to Western officials, security analysts and customs data. (...) The Wall Street Journal viewed Russian customs records provided by ImportGenius, a trade database firm, and C4ADS, a Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in identifying national-security threats. (...) Some drones and drone parts were delivered through the European Union after the war started, according to trade data and the Dutch government." - the aforementioned Wall Street Journal piece.

The Bloomberg and NYT piece seem to have substantive coverage, but maybe not the WSJ one as they only mention ImportGenius by name once and simply refer to "customs data" for the rest of the article.

Finbee (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Finbee, I wouldn't consider this significant coverage (although I would consider it WP:USEBYOTHERS, which would establish it as a reliable source). Ultimately, the only information that these sources give us about the company is that they provide international trade records and are based in the US. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

They'd be reliable sources for an article, but not good sources for notability then? I do kind of wonder though, if their product is data, and the articles are about their data, does that mean that the articles are about their product? There's some sources that cover the actual website itself but I'm mixed on their reliability.

https://news.co.cr/import-genius-brings-big-data-to-costa-rica-imports-and-exports/18244/ -- Seems to be derived from a press release, credible outlet, The Costa Rica Star

https://www.bus-ex.com/article/alibaba-and-importgenius-announce-important-tie -- Trade Magazine, half about Alibaba.

https://techcrunch.com/2008/05/28/importgenius-the-disruptive-shipping-database/ -- Entirely original and focused solely on ImportGenius, probably significant, published by TechCrunch.

https://spendmatters.com/2008/05/29/are-you-an-importgenius-or-should-you-go-straight-to-the-source/ -- Trade Journal, probably not notable even if they are the focus.

https://freakonomics.com/2008/06/amazing-new-trade-data/ -- Blog post, not reliable.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tracking-back-school-orders-stack-175852444.html -- Data/Analysis appears to entirely credited to ImportGenius, with the majority of the article being charts with their logo on them, again, not about the company, but about the data/analysis. Finbee (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The bar for WP:NCORP is high. As for the data being their product, deriving notability from these sources' use of the product would be analogous to deriving notability for the NYT's paper supplier; it's a sign of quality, but it's not a basis for an encyclopedic article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if the analysts mentioned in the articles the originating sources for the article? Finbee (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I would suggest looking at Google Scholar, Google Books, and Jstor to see if any scholarly or government publications have written about them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

NPR request

Hi, last month you accepted my request to be a new page reviewer for a one month trial, which has since expired. I put in another request after the trial stopped, but it has gone unanswered for four days. I was wondering if there's a different way I should request the permission because I've already had it, or if others have just been too busy to see it. Thanks! greyzxq ^talk 16:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Greyzxq, your request is in the right place, I or someone else should review it soon. I don't think I've seen a request go unanswered for more than 7 days lately. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, just thought I'd make sure. Thanks again! greyzxq ^talk 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

DXNG-FM

Hi there. When I sent this to AfD, it did not add the AfD template to the article, so I re-did it. Now the template is on the article, but there are two discussions at AfD. Could you please delete one of them? Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done, I deleted the second nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your signature

There your username does not appear in your signature, and without looking at the page's editing history it is impossible to tell who made the comment. Idk if you did that intentionally or it is unintentional. If the latter is the case, you might want to fix it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I included a fifth tilde by accident. My keyboard isn't what it used to be and makes some creative additions to my writing at times. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

NPR

Hello sir, Please examine my contributions, and if you think I qualify, give me the chance to review new pages for a trial month to see whether I'm up to the task. As an AfC reviewer, I am knowledgeable about the CSD, XFD, PROD, GNG, SNG, and BLP policies. I believe this will help Wikipedia obtain a quality reviewer in the future. DreamRimmer (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Good day, sir, please take a moment to check my contributions. DreamRimmer (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested at WP:PERM. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to this earlier--your request at PERM should get reviewed within a week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Close of Nowhere differentiable

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 16#(Continuous) nowhere differentiable function: Can you fix this asap? Retargeted to a wrong target. Jay 💬 07:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You may have logged out for the day. I waited a couple of hours and have reverted the close, and reverted the changes in 11 pages. Jay 💬 10:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Jay, oops, keyboard failure there. I've reclosed with the correct target now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 NPP Drive Award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given to Rosguill for collecting more than 200 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Etienne Mermer

I've redirected to Vanuatu national football team (as a possible search term), which people seem to forget that's an option at AfD. He seemed to be somewhat a bit of an important figure in the Island's national football and seems to do a lot for them. I thought I saw enough for WP:BASIC, so I am surprised with the delete verdict. Alas, I guess that happens know. All the best, Govvy (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Govvy, regarding the redirect creation, I don't have any issues with it. I know some editors have raised concerns that redirecting a player to a team can be an example of a costly redirect to maintain, but I would think that's less true of a national squad. As far as the close of the AfD discussion, if there had been a detailed defense of the depth of sourcing against the analyses describing it as fleeting I would have evaluated the discussion differently. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgotten baby syndrome

Hello! I just wanted to give you a heads up that I did a partial revert of one of your edits, in case you wanted to revert or discuss on the talk page. The article you mentioned did lead with mentioning the number of U.S. deaths, but, on the second page, it mentioned studies of Brazilian and Italian cases, though it didn't have a year cap on them, so I was cheating a bit (I figured if there were dozens in the U.S. and some amount per year in other places, it was fair to say dozens of incidents globally—arguably a WP:SYNTH issue depending on how you view the basic math/count exception.) Still, to be safe, I reinserted the sentence but added citations to each study (and a couple more) rather just rely on the Lee-Kelland & Finlay study. It's ... really hard to read as a diff, but here's the diff: I'd suggest just scrolling to the explanatory note towards the bottom of the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Jerome Frank Disciple thanks for following up on this, I think the compound note is a good solution. My concern from the math of the original edit (in addition to having missed the relevant mention you found) was that the global total could potentially be significantly larger (i.e. hundreds instead of dozens), or else this could be a uniquely common US phenomenon that would be misleading to generalize to the world, even if "dozens" remained accurate. With the addition of the note, my concerns are addressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Close of User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config

Regarding the closure here, I think you have it the other way around - Template:User MiszaBot/Config was the one which was voted as a delete, and User:Lowercase sigmabot III/config was the one that had discussion about being turned into a wrapper or something else (and should therefore be the no consensus one). Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, fixed now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Hello,

I just wanted to bring up that I did not accuse anyone of a nationalistic POV, but rather Khirurg. I claimed that he often reverts edits without discussing and have tried to prove that by clear and convincing evidence.

Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

While you did not bandy about the phrase "nationalistic editing", what led me to issue the warning was the unproductive back and forth between you and Khirurg, and that uninvolved editors felt that the evidence you presented in the original complaint should be resolved as a content dispute. For evidence of tendentious stonewalling to be persuasive, you need to provide examples of the other editor disputing obvious consensus to that end--a disagreement between the two of you is pretty much never going to rise to the level of immediate sanctions unless there is obvious fabrication of sources involved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to make a question. Khirurg keeps accusing other editors who he is in content disputes with off "tag-teaming" without any evidence, although he has been asked to not do that many times. Last time he did that was yesterday [1]. If he makes tag-teaming claims without evidence, is it considered a personal attack covered by the warning you issued? I ask because for me it has been difficult to discuss in content disputes where Khrirug is involved because of the tag-teaming accusations. Durraz0 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Durraz0, yes it is an unproductive casting of aspersions, although I would consider it a milder accusation than what was being levied in the discussion involving AlexBachmann. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Best regards. Durraz0 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

(unindent) @Rosguill: Speaking of aspersions, here is a small sample of what I am regularly subjected to:

• Seems you simply didn't bother to actually read the whole disagreement. Big surprise.
• read them very carefully and slowly so you can truly grasp what they're saying.
• You have tried to add so much Greek-related stuff in UNDUE fashion to the Albania article, that you judge edits only as "add Greek stuff" and "remove Greek stuff".
• I'm sure Khirurg wouldn't like it if I filled up the Greek article with Albanian stuff.
• I think you don't like the fact that Pyrrhus grew up in an Illyrian household.

This is just a small sample from recent days, but I could go on and on, it's basically non-stop at this point. There a number of things I want to work on, but I basically can't because I am consistently sidetracked with stuff like this. I can just easily provide examples of tag-teaming behavior, for example here [2]. If you look at the contribs history of the accounts removing the info, they all have something in common. I had previously filed at ANI giving a massive amount of evidence, but it seems it was filibustered [3]. I am a veteran editor and I don't make accusations lightly. But there is much more to the story than what the above editors are telling you. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Khirurg, you were blocked for personal attacks in 2021 after you did not listen to an admin's warning that your "tag-teaming" claims are a personal attack[4]. After the block expired you have repeated the claim many times. You need to stop that now. Regards. Durraz0 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of tag-teaming, but I was accused of not presenting evidence and would merely like to show that there is evidence. And you know full well that that block was not for tag-teaming accusations. You tried again a few months later [5], but were told off [6]. This is now the third time you post about me to an admin's talkpage, despite few contribs overall, why are you so interested in me and what is it you want? Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we really go into that WP:CIVIL thing again? AlexBachmann (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

For the record. I reported Khirurg twice in the past. The first ended up with a block for personal attacks which Khirurg had made against me and another editor. In the second report the admin said he did not want to get involved in that case. Also two days ago Khriurg made the same "tag-teaming" claim on the talk page of an article during a content dispute [7]. Given that it was not an ANI/I or AE with diffs but in the middle of a content dispute, that is an aspersion. Until Khirurg proves his "tag-teaming" claims at ANI/I (which means admins decide he is right about "tag-teaming"), I think he does not have the right to make that claim against other editors in content disputes. I think I am done here. I planned to make a question to Rosguil alone and not get involved in a long discussion. Thanks. Durraz0 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Review - thanks and a question

Thanks for reviewing the biography of Evelyn Mary Macdonald at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Mary_Macdonald

Where is the review? Sorry, this feels like a stupid question. I've not been able to find the review. If the review contains suggestions for improvement, I would like to review the feedback and make the changes. If Macdonald's entry is acceptable, then great and thanks for your time. Thanks. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no written review, apologies for the confusion! As the article passes notability guidelines and does not have any significant issues that would require tagging, I've marked it reviewed to let it out of the new pages queue and release it for indexing to search engines. Reviewers typically also do minor cleanup and tagging for WP:Wikiprojects. You can read more about new page reviewing here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - great to know that it's OK. Only my second entry so a bit concerned and still learning. I will read about the new page reviewing process. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello @Rosguill. Genuine question, a source says that Ilyas Gorchkhanov (the first leader of Ingush Jamaat who held his position up until his death in 2005) is subordinated to "Akhmad" (Akhmad Evloev, also known as Ali Taziev. Does this mean that Ingush Jamaat is part of ChRI? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes, the source stating that Gorchkhanov was subordinated to the "emir and commandant of ChRI's Ingush sector" means that they were part of the ChRI command structure, at least for the June 2004 raid, according to that source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional 2 questions. If there's source regarding the result, which clearly indicates the victory as Chechen-Ingush, then how can this still matter of an argument? I'm talking about this source which supports my version: "The same year, the Chechen and Ingush militants carried out a successful raid on the Russian interior forces in Nazran, Ingushetia, killing 80 troops". I also don't understand how is adding text about Ingush militants in the lead-section giving undue weight when reliable sources, first of all mention them, and separate and differentiate them from the Chechen militants. Sorry for bothering you with all of this, but I just have to hear third party's opinion on this matter. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like it's probably a question of balance across multiple sources. Having previously looked at some of the sources involved at that article, my sense is that part of the confusion among sources is that some of the sources use "Chechen(s)" as a shorthand for ChRI, as derived from "Chechen Republic" irrespective of the ethnicity of individuals affiliated with it. Depending on the relative balance of coverage across sources, it may or may not be appropriate to describe it as Chechen-Ingush, or alternatively as just "Separatist victory", dropping the ethnic/national designation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

And how do you achieve that "balance"? Sorry, I'm just not understanding this undue weight thing well. I added 6 (5 were English and 1 was Russian) reliable sources for the text "Ingush militants" so shouldn't there be no longer undue weight as it isn't a minority viewpoint? These sources pretty much state the same, that is, the raid was done by Chechen and Ingush militants/fighters. They don't state that Ingush militants were merely a small portion of the main Chechen group as Ola is trying to make it seem like that by moving the text to Attacks section and wording it as "The attacking force had some Ingush militants". WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

At that point it becomes an editorial discussion of how best to represent the claims--there aren't any universal rules when it comes to assessing things like this, and considerations can include the relative strength of sources, the extent to which they describe the group as a whole as having an ethnic or national character.

In particular, since it seems like a primary point of dispute is the characterization of the "victory" belonging to one group or another, the most important detail is how the sources describe the battle and result in summary or in passing: when referring to the ChRI/IJ forces, do they say "Chechen forces", "separatist forces", "Chechen-Ingush forces", etc.? Which usage is more common across sources, taking into account the relative strength of each source? Even if the description in those phrases may be at odds with details of the group's composition as given elsewhere in the same or other sources, it is this summary usage that should guide our terminology when we are giving similar summary judgments (and details are saved for the body of the article). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment

On the 2001 Insurgency in Macedonia RfC. Which WikiProjects could have interested editors in giving a well-thought opinion? The Military History wikiproject has already been notified, without any input from its members so far. Also, would you consider giving your own opinion there? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I can't think of any other WikiProjects per-se, although WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN may be good places to notify. I'll look through the sources again and comment when I get a chance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try WP:NPOVN. Maybe someone there will find the RfC interesting. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #74601

denies UPE. Can you offer me guidance/insight? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, the editor ignored and deleted COI disclosure requests back in 2020, sockpuppeted to dodge the block the first time around, and engaged in a pattern of writing short stubs about a wide range of non-notable businesspersons. My sense is that their only route back to a third chance would be SO (which I guess they've completed) coupled with an editing restriction against creating new BLPs (or something equivalent to keep them from the prior pattern of suspicious editing). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

So it looks like we are moving toward restoring talk page access. However, the subtext at UTRS is a return to what they were doing. I'll let them know about not creating new BLP's -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"I just thought of adding a new article on Wikipedia as an informational purpose," really takes my breath away. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

New Horizon Institute

Hello, I'm afraid I don't agree with your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Institute. As I explained in my argument to !keep for the time being, I don't think that sufficient WP:BEFORE research was done by the nominator or by anyone in the discussion, and that the language issue was also a factor. I understand that this is not strictly speaking an deletion policy argument, but I also object on the grounds that all other Wikipedia articles on secondary schools in Nepal have fewer sources or are completely unsourced, and that the one that had the largest number of references and substantive content was the one that was deleted first. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

While that is a valid argument with a basis in the guideline WP:NEXIST, I think it's clear from the discussion that editors were generally not swayed by it in this discussion, and their arguments on the basis of available sources are themselves valid, and sufficiently outnumber the editors making valid cases for keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just deeply uncomfortable with the fact that it's "easy" for people to !vote to delete articles about topics without sufficient understanding or appreciation of other geographies, languages, and cultures. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and tp disruption

Hi Rosguill. Some days ago you gave AE-logged warnings to Khirurg and AlexBachmann for personal attacks against each other. If you look at their editing history, they are edit warring over several articles with each other. They are also exchanging accusations on articles' talk pages and edit summaries, or making other off-topic comments. Some instances. I think that that edit summary with unproven WP:STALK accusations is far a from what is expected from editors in a content dispute. An admin noted on the talk page of Greece that AlexBachmann breached WP:POINT with their edit [8] as a "tit-for-tat" edit and called it an unhealthy battleground approach to editing. Khirurg , however, added unproven accusations of WP:STALK and WP:CIR [9]. Repeatedly accusing another editor in content disputes of stalking and lack of competence without proper evidence are very serious personal attacks. Khirurg keeps responding to AlexBachmann with accusations. The general discussion there does not seem concentrated on the content dispute itself. On Fier there is another inflammatory edit summary by Khirurg [10]. They are reverting each other on multiple articles. I think that an admin should take a look because this is becoming more and more unhelpful for other editors. Durraz0 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted AlexBachmann exactly once in the last two weeks [11], where I felt he was stalking me. So they are edit warring over several articles with each other is false. Regarding WP:STALK, yes, it is my belief that AlexBachmann did stalk me to that page, as he reverted me within minutes, at an article he had never edited before. Am I supposed to not say anything if I feel I am being stalked? What am I supposed to do, just shut up and do nothing about it? What is WP:STALK for, then? I find it disturbing that you find the accusation of WP:STALK worse than the actual stalking behavior itself. It's as if you really really want me blocked. And the WP:CIR comes from the fact that he does not appear to understand the meaning of the word "civilization" [12], and numerous other incompetent edits such as these [13] (no admins decided anything, nor do admins decide on content disputes), or this [14] (poor sourcing). At Ioannina, he wasted the community's time for a month trying to add the Albanian name to the lede, and despite editors explaining to him that his google searched were flawed [15], he kept insisting. Because he didn't like a sentence at Albania [16], he kicked up a fuss at Greece in retaliation [17]. In addition to the obvious WP:BATTLE behavior pointed out by Future Perfect, the sentence he is proposing is extremely poorly worded, showing lack of competence. The Arvanites, Vlachs, Pomaks, he wants added to the lede are not "civilizations", they are minorities. Yes, there are competence issues here. So yes, I have been short with this user at times, because my patience with them is nearly exhausted. Even now at Talk:Greece, he refuses to let go, even though the sentence he objected to at Albania was changed. Lastly, Durraz0, I note this is the fourth time you post at an admin's page about me, and it is also obvious from the tone of your post that you are really in search of block. You are leaving out crucial context and magnifying the seriousness of the accusations ("very serious personal attacks", "they are edit warring over several articles with each other"), and it's obvious why. Khirurg keeps replying to AlexBachmann with accusations is also clearly false. Did I respond with accusations here [18] or here [19]? If you look at the whole picture, I have in fact been quite patient with AlexBachmann. I feel WP:HOUNDed, and perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG is in order for making false statements while going block-fishing. Khirurg (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Here you have WP:PA. I have the feeling you're not the innocent one in all of this. AlexBachmann (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Durraz0, Khirurg, please take concerns to WP:AE. I'm disinclined to consider any complaints at my talk page whose impropriety is less obvious than hurling slurs at each other or flagrant 3RR violations, as I do not necessarily have the time to make a thorough investigation at any given moment and the venue further restricts the accused editors' ability to respond to accusations (Khirurg's appearance here notwithstanding). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Rosguill. Should I file an AE report for both editors, or should I file one for each editor? Durraz0 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Only file together if the case is written as a single dispute between the two editors; if you're primarily bringing in diffs of things that they've done independently, separate cases would probably be more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet

Hello @Rosguill, a certain user has significantly altered the Durdzuks article, under different IP-adrresses: user 1, user 2 and user 3. In talk page of the article, this user has made it clear that he does not trust many sources and references provided, and is heavily misusing the citation tag diff. Is this considered Sockpuppetry? Muqale (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Muqale I have pretty limited experience with IPs and IP math, but based on the amount of similarity in the IP addressses (first 16 characters in common across all three), the concentration of edits on a single article, and the results of an IP geolocator tool [20] which places all of these IPs in New York City, my guess would be that these are in fact all the same person, unintentionally switching IPs due to the whims of their ISP and not as an attempt to sockpuppet. For purposes of reverts, etc. these should be treated as a single editor but don't comprise sockpuppetry IMO unless their user attempts to actively present themselves as separate people (i.e. making comments as if they're not all the same person, claiming exemptions from 1RR or 3RR limits, etc.) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the clarification. Muqale (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That having been said, looking at the page's history in toto rather than the individual edits, it's clear that they're edit warring against you and others in a disruptive fashion, so I've gone ahead and protected the page from IP editing for 2 days as a regular admin action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Israel-Slovenia Relations

Hello, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia has I am quite new, I still don't understand why my article is being banned, Thank you. AnnaWang17 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

AnnaWang17, the issue, as explained in the first notice that I left on your user talk page, is that editors with fewer than 500 edits on their account are not allowed to edit the topic area of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed (accounts also must be older than 30 days, but that's not an issue in your case anymore). "Broadly construed", in this case, means that pretty much anything relating to the politics or diplomacy of Israel or Hezbollah (among other groups involved in the conflict) is off-limits. These restrictions were authorized following an WP:ARBCOM case (itself only coming after extensive community discussion and general disruption in the topic area), and were implemented to impede the frequent attempts of sockpuppetry that we see in this and other conflict-prone areas. Any edits made by non-500/30 accounts may be reverted by any other editor as an enforcement measure.

Now, while articles that are entirely about the conflict, such as Six Day War, can be protected at the page level to prevent non-500/30 editors from touching the page (WP:ECP), for articles that merely touch upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some of their sections this is not a preferred option (e.g. in theory you could maybe add information about trade relations between Slovenia and Israel, or Israeli priorities in Slovenia provided that do not touch upon the conflict; a cleaner example of an article with both ARBPIA and non-ARBPIA content would be something like Freedom of religion in Asia by country, where the Israel/Palestine section is covered by ARBPIA but the rest of the article is totally unrelated). There's also the further issue that it would be a fool's errand to try to preemptively protect every page title related to the conflict that does not yet have an article created. As both of the revisions at Israel–Slovenia relations that you created dealt directly with Slovenia's attitude towards Hezbollah, and thus with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this was a repeated violation of the 500/30 restriction that I felt would be best addressed by simply preventing you from editing that page further, without limiting other editors from contributing to the page in a ARBPIA-compliant fashion, with a time limit of one month so that the once you do meet the 500/30 requirement you will be free to edit without needing to appeal this partial-block.

If any of this seems quite complicated: it is, regrettably. Editing related to ARBCOM-designated contentious topics (CTOPs) is one of the most difficult and contentious areas on Wikipedia, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict further belongs to a subset of CTOPs that have specifically authorized a blanket 500/30 restriction for the entire topic area (the other two topics with this level of precaution are Antisemitism in Poland and Armenia-Azerbaijan). You will have a much warmer welcome to Wikipedia editing if you focus on topics outside of these areas. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of British royal consorts

Could you please delete the above page and move Talk:British royal consorts to Talk:List of British royal consorts? Thanks. There was an oversight during the recent moves. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Taken care of. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Redirect question

Hello friend. Quick question about redirects, if you're willing. A) Does the target article always have to have the redirect term in it? B) For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15955 Johannesgmunden is about an asteroid that will probably get deleted. Would it be appropriate to redirect something like that to Asteroid belt, or would that be a bad target because it doesn't contain the term 15955 Johannesgmunden? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I would say it depends a bit on the nature of the article and redirect in question. In this case, I don't think it would be helpful, as for the reader, inferring that 15955 Johannesgmunden is an asteroid is unlikely to be new and useful information; is/a relationship redirects are rarely helpful and get in the way of WP:REDYES. However, a strict synonym for a target that for whatever reason is not significant enough to mention in text, e.g. Nueva York --> New York or obvious antonyms (e.g. Anti-elitism --> Elitism) are typically good as a redirect. You can find more examples by taking a look at Template:R to article without mention _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge dispute

I made a Merge proposal there but there is disagreement if it should be done. Should in this case an RfC be opened, or should an admin decide? What is the way to proceed in such cases? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I read WP:MERGE but I am not sure if I understood correctly how it is proceeded. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, I would list it first at proposed mergers (essentially a specialized request for comment). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello! I hope you can review this page as it has been up for a while but remains unreviewed. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still..._At_Their_Very_Best Maxen Embry (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, as a general rule I don't review articles on request. The backlog is relatively short right now, with average review wait times under a month. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

NPP School

Greetings Rosguill! I was wondering if you had any open slots in your schedule to train me in NPP school. If not, that’s completely fine. Maliner (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Maliner I'm currently traveling and wouldn't want to commit to taking on a new student before mid-July. If you're still looking for a mentor in a few weeks I'll probably have capacity then. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted with thanks. Will be happy to learn with you. Maliner (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Please ping me when you will be free. Maliner (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Recoup content from Sportskeeda, please draftify

Hi, I would like to create the page for the parent company of Sportskeeda. May I get access to the draft, and expand it please? I may possibly change the name of the draft to the Parent company, but I would like to not start from scratch and gain access to the article of Sportskeeda, which will be a section in the article, to which will be will be able to redirect. Thank you! Lethweimaster (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. Given that the plan is to adapt this content to an article about the parent company, I'm going to opt for placing this into your user space rather than draftspace. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Lethweimaster, you can find it at User:Lethweimaster/Sportskeeda-Nazara Technologies _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Angels–Mariners rivalry

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Angels–Mariners rivalry. 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. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 article 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)