User talk:Rosguill

Thank you for reviewing my redirects!

I thank you so much for reviewing my redirects I created! I really appreciate it!

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thank you for your kind words, I don't go out of my way to bring articles back into mainspace unless it is for a good reason, and usually it's because I have already read the significant coverage from many of the reliable sources vetted by the VG Wiki project and make my judgment based on that. Here's a barnstar for you too. I appreciate that you've kept up with the articles I have written, and giving my contributions a fair look instead of casually writing it off. Haleth (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

This fella's actions are getting out hand. Just look at these: 1, 2, 3,. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, yeah, I know. I'm slightly too involved with the specific content at issue be comfortable using admin tools myself. I'm already drafting a report for AN3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, actually I'm not going to file anything at this time as they appear to have stopped, and had not yet been notified of discretionary sanctions so technically they haven't violated 3RR yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As you wish. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Potential edit war and opinion on deadnaming

Hi, I thought you might have an opinion about this. On one hand, we should maintain a neutral tone. On the other hand, this is a fictional character. Is there consensus or precedent on wikipedia about guidelines on gender pronouns for fictional transgender characters? Haleth (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Haleth, I think that in this case we should defer to reliable source's coverage, considering as well the in-universe rendering of the name (i.e., what pronouns do in-game characters use when referring to this part of the character's past). As for the edit warring, while it's close to 3RR, it looks like a few different unrelated content disputes between the same editors in short succession and I'm not sure that intervention is necessary just yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

you deleted my edit in the asia page

Hi,

This is Samar Hijazi and i believe you deleted my edit on the asian countries. Do you have disagreement with putting all the countries (china saudi palestine israel thailand taiwan) together?? i am seeing that this is sensitive issues for some like you, why do you disagree with my suggestion??

Samar al-hejazi (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Samar al-hejazi, I have no opinion on the content of List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia‎. I stepped in as an administrator because several editors were edit warring back and forth, which is quite disruptive and should be avoided. As the editor proposing changes, the onus is on you to win a consensus for your proposed changes on the talk page. You can encourage other editors to participate by pinging them to the discussion. If you're unable to resolve the discussion between yourselves on the talk page, next steps would be either WP:DRN or WP:RfC. It's worth noting that the current version was the result of a long RfC discussion that was closed 9 months ago: winning consensus for changes is likely to be an uphill battle for you.

I'm also going to leave a discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page, which provides links to pages that clarify the (stricter) behavior expected of editors editing topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not understanding why it is so big deal to you and everyone to include them together like it not make a difference to your life. Are you like supporting israeli or palestine?? like my GOD why everyone not just grow up this is a silly arguments you guys having?

Samar al-hejazi (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Samar al-hejazi, I already told you that I don't have a personal opinion on what the content should be, I am here to uphold the norms of how discussions proceed on Wikipedia. Once someone has objected to your changes, you need to talk it out with them. This procedure is what allows Wikipedia editors to work together on so many different difficult topics, and without it the platform would be total chaos. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Re-create EQ3 Redirect?

Hi, I saw you deleted the redirect I'd created for EQ3 -> Palliser Furniture (apologies for not seeing the discussion in time to bring it up there, I'm not a very active user). I've updated the Palliser Furniture page to mention that EQ3 is one of Palliser's sub-brands (with an appropriate citation). Would it be appropriate to re-create the redirect? I'm not especially invested in its existence, I just wanted to help the next person who tries to look up EQ3 like I did. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aughtandzero (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Aughtandzero, with the added mention at the target it's an appropriate redirect, go ahead and recreate it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Admin question

(Asking you as an uninvolved admin): There was a misunderstanding with a recent requested move discussion I started in that the discussion closer (a page mover) moved the page to the wrong name after incorrectly determining there was consensus to move to this incorrect name. The mistake has been corrected after further discussion, and while I do believe the closer was acting in good faith, it makes me question whether they used sufficient judgement and discretion required of a page mover. Would it be appropriate to start a move review even if the move has now been completed correctly? What is the best way to express my concerns about this users actions and page mover rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs)

Mdewman6, if the mistake has already been corrected, then I think it depends a bit on the nature of the mistake, whether it was due to a mistake in performing the move itself or due to a misreading of consensus; if it's the former then there may be an issue with their use of the permissions, whereas if it's the latter then the issue is their further participation closing discussions. Either way, I think the first step is to talk to the editor in question on their talk page. If you still have concerns about their ability to use the permissions after you've done that, then raising the case at ANI would be the next step. All that having been said, I don't know that a single error is necessarily a basis for removal of permissions or topic-bans, unless the error is particularly egregious. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue was a misreading of consensus that was due in part I believe to the subject matter (chemistry). My concern is that page movers are supposed to exercise discretion and focus on closing discussions where there is obvious consensus and there is little possibility for confusion. The mistake was noted on the talk page by an uninvolved user pinging the closer, and after 24 hours I placed a technical request which the original closer/mover contested, still believing they were right, even as another page mover was completing the technical request, only to move it back due to the contest. Only after further discussion on their talk page did they acknowledge the mistake and make the correct page moves. My goal is to prevent this sort of mess in the future. I will continue the discussion on that closer's talk page, and consider going to ANI only if I am unsatisfied with the results. I agree page mover rights should not be revoked based on a single instance, but how does a "pattern" become articulated if cases are not documented somehow? Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I understand that closing an RM discussion is not specifically a page mover thing, but this required a move over a redirect with history, so unlikely a non-page mover or non-admin would have closed this discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Mdewman6, that seems reasonable. As far as the "pattern" is concerned, diffs from this issue being raised on their talk page, at RM, etc. would suffice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Epic Rap Battles of History redirects

Is it normal that all the categories on the redirects got removed? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4 first I've ever noticed that, not sure what to make of it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly add Category:Epic Rap Battles of History to all of them while retargeting, but the other categories are specific to the episodes. I really didn't want to do that manually. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, if you're going through them to retarget to sections anyway, the easier method may be to restore the pre-close state and then change the target to the correct location. Might be worth running by a technical request related noticeboard to see if they have any ideas for either resolving the current situation or fixing the bug that caused it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Any updates? As it seems from Special:Diff/885852612, @Richhoncho: opposes this categorisation (btw, due to the lack of Category:Epic Rap Battles of History on the redirect, this one had not even been part of the nomination). Should I just retarget them without restoring the categories? Otherwise, some kind of mass-revert would be needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, I think retargeting without restoring categories is fine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I had no time to do this yet, but is the tool continuing to remove categories from redirects? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, in the case of this edit, I see that it removed redirect categories, which are really implemented as templates. I think that that's actually an appropriate automated action to take on an RfD closed as redirect, as rcats generally describe the relationship between a redirect and its target, and thus are often going to be inaccurate after the target is changed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tim Cooper (academic)

I can confirm that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits on the wiki page headed Tim Cooper (academic). Greenthc57 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, this disclosure should go on your talk page, not mine, or no one else will see it. Also, please clarify as to whether you have any other connection to Tim Cooper or his associates. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - I'm a novice at editing wiki and put it on both of our talk pages. I am Tim Cooper and my only edits were factual corrections to the draft, which was written by someone who has in the past been employed by my university.Greenthc57 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, ok, we still consider that to be a conflict of interest. Please follow the instructions at WP:COIDISCLOSE. Are you aware of any other accounts affiliated with your university that may have worked on the article? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed the COI on the relevant Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tim_Cooper_(academic) Greenthc57 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC) The person who originated this page was at the time an employee at Nottingham Trent University. This is stated clearly by Matt Shapley. Greenthc57 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The entry still has the banner 'This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. (October 2020).' What needs to happen for this to be removed?Greenthc57 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, there's still an editor that made significant contributions to the article that has not responded properly to requests for disclosure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The only editor with whom I've had recent contact says that he has informed you that he's a university employee. I thought he had done that already. On the matter of notability, there will be some further evidence in a UK Government report on eletronic waste published tomorrow. Unfortunately, previous third party references to notability on the page have been removed and the link for a couple that remain no longer work. I could correct the latter, but you advised me not to edit the page. Greenthc57 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, you can request that other editors make changes to the page using Template:Request edit (follow that link for the documentation) at Talk:Tim Cooper (academic). The last editor I was suspicious about just posted a disclosure, so I've swapped the {{undisclosed paid}} with {{coi}} _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

About one editor

Hello, Rosguill. I want to ask you for help about a strange editor, AndriiDr talk. In articles Rus' people and Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia, it cancels only my edits, and almost all of them, indiscriminately. On my discussion page, he said that half of my edits were canceled not by him, but by other participants, although this is not true. At the same time, his manner of communication shows that he does not speak English so well, but uses a Google translator. I suspect that this is the editor of Gaudi9223, who is taking revenge for being blocked. Can you help? Noraskulk (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Noraskulk, at a glance, it looks like they're saying that both they and other editors have been reverting your edits. I don't think that I'm going to have time to investigate this any time soon, so you may want to reach out to another admin or WP:ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Watch

Shalom ahi. Manishma? I saw your text regarding adding Genocide Watch statement to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I don't know whether you read the statement or not, it is completely one sided statement and uses typical shablon words that Armenian Diaspora uses in all their sponsored articles. If you read forbes station that guys suggested under discussion, it also had exact same content. I don't reject the fact that there will a refugee crisis as it happened in 1991-1992 where around 800,000 Azeris were displaces from the region. If we want to be informative and unbiased we should also consider sensitive facts to be objectively addressed. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, the Forbes source is worthless, and I think that the current draft is skewed, if a fair WP:BOLD edit. You're within your rights to revert it, but I would suggest contesting individual claims and working to improve it rather than deadlocking. While the balance of the overall content of that section clearly reflects a pro-Armenian POV, the eye-catching claims I checked are backed by the reliable sources cited. Nevertheless, I think that the same claims could probably be presented in a more balanced manner, and that would be a constructive way to approach the issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I have a deep knowledge about this conflict. As I mentioned in talk tap under this topic, the statement includes causes as a fact as well, claiming extermination of armenian population. Just one example from today, Armenians under 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict topic tries to draw picture that Azerbaijan side is intended to conduct ethnic cleaning but they want to hide the fact that they already conducted it in 1990-1992 war by driving 800,000 local residents from the Nagorno-Karabakh area including 7 adjacent territories that is out of dispute. The claims by Armenian side about possible ethnic cleaning of area should be described as potential act of revanchism, if this will happen. I am looking forward to collaborate in order to issue more balanced and constructive text.Mirhasanov (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Armatura (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup after me?

Hi Rosguill, thanks for patrolling Jean-Baptiste François Xavier Cousin De Grainville‎. I realized seeing it on my watchlist that I screwed up: it should be a lowercase "de", not uppercase, and there probably isn't reason for keeping them both. Can you move it without leaving a redirect (assuming that's correct)? (I lack the perm but if it should be moved leaving a redirect behind let me know and I can do that myself.) Thanks, Lev!vich 17:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Levivich,  Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Created an article - Draft:Dmitry Borisovich Volkov. During the review, I was made a comment about the style of advertising. It is difficult for me to correct the article, as I do not know English well. On the forum, I was advised to contact a participant who knows Russian and English well. I really ask for your help in adjusting the advertising style of the article. You are the last chance to help. I will be very grateful to you !!! Thank you very much. 95.153.132.83 (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't commit the time to rewrite the article. Glancing at it quickly, I think that one thing you could do to help make a case for moving it to mainspace would be to identify the WP:THREE best sources that the article cites, and ask the AfC reviewer if they would be willing to accept to mainspace and add a POV-tag to the article on that basis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Time to close Parasite (film) move review

Hello. Is it now time to close Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2020_September#Parasite_(film)? No new responses in over half a month. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, I don't like closing discussions that I've already closed meta-discussions for, but I do agree that it's time to close this one. I'll list it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war

Hello Rosguill. Since many editors have conflicts of interest, it think it's not acceptable to discuss other users' opinion this way and make it the voice of Wikipedia, why we have references? According to the rules and policies of Wikipedia, we must keep POV in the articles. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, I'm not sure why you're telling me this, much less on my user talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, you are the only known from admins who is following this talk page and certain users tagging you constantly. If you know other admins interested and following this topic as well, please, share their user names. Also, if it's not your talk page, where do you suggest to contact you, when I want to discuss with you. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, here is the place to contact me, I just wasn't sure what issue you were trying to address with the first message you left, as you made a vague statement that is in line with Wikipedia policy without identifying how it's connected to any specific dispute. Historically, Ymblanter has been active in Armenia–Azerbaijan articles, but my understanding they've recently stepped back from working on topics under discretionary sanctions due to unrelated disputes. Other than that, I'm not aware of any admins that have been active in this subject in particular; depending on the issue at hand, you may find it useful to reach out to an admin that's active elsewhere, but I would suggest coming with an actual question or issue, not just a vague call to action. Alternatively, if there's a specific task you need completed you can add it to a backlog. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Sorry if it wasn't clear, I thought that the title of this section would clarify which topic I am talking about. Also, a user on a page of English Wikipedia wrote the following:

Rosguill seems to agree with me on the term occupied.

I think we should not draw such conclusions, especially since we have to keep neutrality, not one-sidedness. It's about a self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh who has on its control other districts apart from the claimed ones. So using "occupied" with "Nagorno-Karabakh" is definitely Turkish-Azerbaijani POV. [1] Thank you for you time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Article - Do we have an NPOV on the subject of massacres?

Hi @Rosguill:. Wanted to write to you in relation to the question of massacres in the 2020 NK Conflict Article. I believe we are veering off the NPOV. To demonstrate what I mean see here the three mentions of the Khojaly massacre:

Official Statement>Azerbaijan:On 29 September, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, spoke about Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Aliyev stated that Armenian control of the area and aggression had led to the destruction of infrastructure and mosques, caused the Khojaly massacre, and resulted in cultural genocide, insulting the Muslim world and being tantamount to state-backed Islamophobia and anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. Source: Azerbaijan State News Agency

Official Statement>Azerbaijan:The next day, Azerbaijani authorities stated that Armenia was conducting an act of genocide, emphasizing the Khojaly massacre. Source: APA.az which is the Azeri Press Agency

International Reactions>Humanitarian Organizations:While for Azerbaijanis, GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis, erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages, and denial of war crimes such as the Khojaly massacre and the current shelling of Azerbaijani civilians. Source: GenocideWatch

Do you think these are warranted and reliably sourced citations of a complex historical event? on the other hand, I find it difficult to understand why you are pushing back on including three different massacres of Armenians in the background section that as per very reliable sources, are thought to have precipitated this conflict. I see you brushed off my concerns about mentioning Khojaly - again tragic as it is - that happened at the end of a conflict, from sources that clearly have a POV to push - at least the first two. There are a few controversies around that massacre, including as Thomas de Waal mentions the question whether Armenians forces warned civilians to leave the city, and the partial Azerbaijan OMON responsibility of the tragedy. See this quote from Thomas de Waal's Black Garden, P172

A Khojali survivor, Salman Abasov, complained later:

"Several days before the events of the tragedy the Armenians told us several times over the radio that they would capture the town and demanded that we leave it. For a long time helicopters flew into Khojali and it wasn’t clear if anyone thought about our fate, took an interest in us."

Don't you think there should at least be qualifications to be mentioned in the article, if we are to include the event?

On the other hand, the sources mentioning Sumgait, Baku and Kirovabad pogroms as precipitating the conflict are not Armenians sources, dot AM websites, opinion pieces or blog posts but The Economist, Los Angeles Times, Thomas de Waal and Laurence Broers the last two being acknowledged authorities on this conflict.

Now, I understand you are the admin of this page, and I respect that. However, are there other admins that I could ask to give their feedback here? I see certain users - who I believe share a POV on this conflict - always tag you as to go-to admin for them on this page, and I would like to get some other feedback as well please. Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, At a glance I think that you're probably right about the mentions of Khojaly Massacre being undue, particularly in the context of the AZ government statements. I can't really devote much time to this issue right now, this is a really busy time for me. I'm not the admin of this page, that's not how adminship works. I'm honestly not sure why primarily Azerbaijan-POV editors tag me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Arameans

Hey Rosguill,

I saw that you closed the RFC on the page: Arameans, however you did not draw a clear line about the conclusion. (Or I maybe just didn't get it right)

As you stated There is consensus that the status quo is inadequate in its presentation of overlapping and contentious terms for Arameans and related ethnoreligious groups, and a rough consensus for splitting between the ancient usage and modern ethnoreligious groups. There is no clarity, however, on where eactly to draw the line; renaming this article, Assyrian people and/or other related articles has also been suggested as a possible component of a solution.

I would recommend the page Arameans to be about the modern group and revert back to this edit [[2]] that also was protected by user:MelanieN. Even tho the edit got reverted by an biased user that was involved in the RFC. Next a page about the History of the Arameans will be created. Conclusion: the pages doesn't need to be renamed, because there will be splitted pages about the ancient and modern group. Merging the page into Assyrian people is not an option since these people do differ from eachother in history, culture, organisations.

I would like to hear if you agree on this.

Best regards and stay safe! Kikkererwtje (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Kikkererwtje, I think that the discussion about article scope needs to be had on the article's talk page. I don't think that the revision protected by MelanieN represents the status quo ante for this dispute, which appears to stretch back to June 2020. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well as I stated, the pages need to be splitted into a page about the modern people and a page about the history of them. The page protected by MelanieN does not represent the status quo ante for this dispute indeed, but it's a text that was written about the modern nation, that was where the whole discussion was going about. So again I recommend to revert the edit back to the protected version of MelanieN. Afterwards an apart page about these people their history can be created.

It's quite worthless to discuss the scope of the article on it's talkpage as the whole RFC was going about whether to or whether not to split two pages about the ancient and modern people. So most probably the whole discussion will start once again while already 2 RFC's took place on the talkpage.

For now we need to make a decision to solve this problem and the only way to solve it is that the page Arameans will go about the modern people and a page named History of the Arameans will go about the ancient history of these people.

Best regards :) Kikkererwtje (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Kikkererwtje, you're asking me to do something outside of my remit as the discussion closer. I am not here to dictate an outcome but rather to establish what the discussion's outcome was, which in this case was no consensus. In the event of no consensus, we revert back to the status quo ante with only rare exceptions. The task at hand for editors working on that page is to figure out how to draw the lines between these overlapping categories, and the place to have that discussion is at its talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar Quote

"Usually when I come across an article about a fictional character or plot element in the back of the new pages queue, it's a poorly-sourced article of dubious notability being edit-warred back into existence."

I love this quote. It also really comes down to Fancruft that has not that much evidence, but they win the debate because there is too many of them to prove otherwise. Le Panini ^Talk 16:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini, thanks for the compliment, although in my experience I feel like I generally don't see pro-fancruft editors win debates at AfD (unlike say, football fans), they just exhaust other editors' goodwill by endlessly recreating articles about obscure Tom & Jerry shorts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have (accidentally) unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm DarkGlow. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, President of the First Republic of Vietnam, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DarkGlow (✉) 20:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about this, I didn't even notice I did this until now! I think we were both reviewing old redirects and I must have clicked one that you'd reviewed, and accidentally clicked unreview rather than review. Sorry again! – DarkGlow (✉) 21:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

DarkGlow, no worries, I immediately assumed this was the case when I saw the notification. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

While I have you, I'm not sure if this is a typical area of Wiki you involve yourself in, but myself and two editors have been looking to get Confetti (Little Mix album) deleted so that I can review and move Draft:Confetti (Little Mix album) moved into mainspace. We have asked the protecting admin of the page, but they have not been helpful. Would you be able to help out? – DarkGlow (✉) 21:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Sorry to bother you again. I have high suspects over lot of newcomer accounts on both sides being sockpuppets. But have no idea where to begin? Any opinion? Beshogur (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, there's essentially two courses of action you can take. One is, if you have reason to believe that the sockpuppets are connected to a specific account, file a case at WP:SPI. Otherwise, tag relevant discussions with {{not a vote}} and leave it to the closer to take care of. If I get some free time, I'll try to go through and investigate/tag possible SPAs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Very thankful! Beshogur (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Durga Hindu Mythology

I saw you made a revert quoting consensus. Did you have a chance to read my points on the talk page? Durga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basavaraj Patel (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Basavaraj Patel, yes I did. The infobox should only be used as an unambiguous summary of the article's key points. Elements of Durga in mythology that are not persistent across major relevant religious denominations probably don't belong in it. Your argument about Jesus in the Quran is not particularly persuasive as there is nothing in the infobox at Jesus that contradicts Islamic theology's perspective. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you for your time. I request you to take a relook at the issue and the references(no 2, no 16) because this one particular interpretation would lead to so many other interpretations and edits across many pages. The mentions of Durga in Vaishnav literature is as minimal as it can get. The entire article Durga sources mythology from two textbooks Devi Mahatmya and Devi Bagavata Purana which are written by non Vaishnavs. The references(no 2, no 16) of Vaishnav sect literature being listed for the dispute words Durga as embodiment of Lakshmi and Shiva as embodiment of Vishnu(Krishna). Durga-Shiva and Lakshmi-Vishnu are the couples in Indian mythology. If you are short on time, i have copied text from those references onto the talk page.Basavaraj Patel (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Basavaraj Patel, based on a review of Google Scholar results, that seems like a failing of the article's composition, not necessarily a reflection of actual existing coverage:

• "Vaishnavism" "Durga" returns 1,320 results
• "Shaktism" "Durga" returns 452 results
• "Shaivism" "Durga" returns 725 results
• "Smartism" "Durga" returns 24 results

Based on these results, I don't think we have a basis for privileging the Shaktist perspective in the infobox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like you to see this change. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, that's annoying, but it seems like the previous stable status quo did include a consort parameter in the infobox, and I'd hazard to say that there's currently no consensus in the talk page. This will likely need to be resolved via RfC, or maybe DRN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

True, the stable version did include a consort. That is also the typical view of the masses it seems. I'm rather neutral in this matter. Let's see what happens in the discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: @Rosguill: I've requested at WP:DRN for resolving the issue, here's the link, Thank you - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus

I noticed that you restored a struck-off message in Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus - [3]. Please note that the consensus was struck off not because of the currently overturned discussion, but a previous one - it was struck off by Barkeep49 who noted that the previous discussion did not yielded a consensus - [4], so the claim of consensus should not have been made. The current discussion is trying to establish a consensus on that issue, but since it is overturned, there is still as yet no consensus, and it would be wrong to claim that there is one. I believe that the restoration of this claim of consensus is mistaken, but attempt to undo it has been reverted. If, however, it is not an error and you did think that there is a consensus, I would be interested to know the reason. Hzh (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hzh, I misunderstood the original situation: I should not have unstruck the message but should have just removed the addendum about the follow up discussion having been closed as consensus against the image. I'll address the issue now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about a redirect

Hello, I was hoping to ask you a question: Would the redirect at Draft:Turning point of World War II be a CSD G6 as a redirect from Drafts to Article space? Thank you for your time,   // Timothy :: talk  05:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I suppose that it could be deleted under G6 as it serves no purpose (no meaningful incoming links, no history of use), but there also isn't much of a reason to bother deleting it either. You may be confusing this case a bit with redirects from mainspace to draftspace, which are covered by CSD R2. Those are problematic because we don't want to unwittingly send readers from articles to drafts, as the entire point of drafts is that they're out of public view. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarity, no reason to create work if none is needed.   // Timothy :: talk  05:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Status of Republic of Artsakh

Hello. In my opinion, the status of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh article is incorrect. If the state does not recognize it, the country to which it belongs must also be written in its status. For example, unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not like Arsakh in the article. Arsakh's status was written by three non-UN member states. Sorry, is this important? Does it matter? However, they are unrecognized separatist organizations. Even four countries have recognized the independence of those separatist organizations. But Arsakh was not recognized by any state. Excuse me, why isn't the Republic of Artsakh article the same as the 3 unrecognized states article? Don't you think this is a double standard? Sword313 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sword313, I agree with the answer that EdJohnston gave you already [5]. At this point, you could consider making an edit request at Republic of Artsakh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

N A

Hello. Navid Abdolmaleki is an amateur and unknown athlete in Iran, and him page has been quickly removed from the Persian Wikipedia several times ( https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/نوید_عبدالملکی ). The medals section also contains fake information and he does not have these medals, Even if it is real, it should be borne in mind that these medals have no value in the world of karate. There are many liars in Iran who introduce themselves as athletes and world and Asian champions! And they make pages on Wikipedia and deceive people. Abdolmaleki has never been a member of the Iranian national karate team and no one knows him except his family and friends. MohammadJarrari (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

MohammadJarrari, start an AfD discussion. Speedy deletion is just for cases where the case for deletion is totally obvious to any editor looking at the page (e.g. an article that just says Bob is my teacher. Bob is great). As your case against this article relies on an understanding of karate and a careful review of the sources cited, it should go through AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. MohammadJarrari (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Getting rid of the POV tag on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Hi Rosguill, what would your take on this be? In your experience, is there likely to be any plausible way of resolving this POV tag? It looks unsubstantiated to me (it's a long, untidy article, so there'll be plenty of bits that need cleaning up, but as a whole it doesn't lean strongly in favour of either side) and the linked section is a malformed RfC which is unlikely to get resolved any time soon (there's a decent chance it'll be prematurely closed) and doesn't actually address a NPOV issue (one side doesn't want to drop the stick until every reference to "disputed" Nagorno-Karabakh is changed to "occupied"). Or in these situations is the only option to wait it out, with the POV tag sitting unaddressed, and probably undeserved, for several months until the editors thin out? I fear it's the latter case, but I just wondered in case you think there are practical steps that could be taken to get this resolved more quickly, while there are still a high volume of views. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 20:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Jr8825, at a glance, I think that the two ways out would be to either 1) try to start a new discussion arguing that the template is unnecessary, regardless of whether there are a few issues unresolved here or there or 2) appeal to a fully uninvolved admin to intercede at AN. This is unfortunately a very busy month for me so I can't commit to being much of a help beyond this advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll try and give the article a proper comb through next week, and then probably take it to AN and see if anyone there is able to help. As many of the regular editors are emotionally involved in the topic I doubt much headway would be made going through the talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 21:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding Armtura's actions that you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Armatura. Thank you. — Mirhasanov (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Busy

Have you been working in the Covidarium? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I have not, dankn gott, the extent of my contribution to fighting covid has been taking on more domestic work for my partner who is on the front lines so to speak. My busy-ness this month has been a product of a bunch of unrelated obligations that all piled up on me. If all goes well I'll be back to normal come mid-December. But until then my Wikipedia contributions will probably be limited to keeping the NPP redirect queue in check and not much more than that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Maddening, isn't it. Looks like I escaped in a nick of time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Malankara Metropolitans

Big ask, so feel free to say no, but could you look at List of Malankara Metropolitans and see if you can help the two editors come to some kind of agreement, or at least an understanding of WP:EW? While edit warring blocks are on the table, I don't think they'll actually fix anything, but I also don't have the emotional bandwidth right now to wade through that mess and avoid making it worse. I saw you volunteer at DRN and thought you might be a good person to ask to step in, but if you're not able or willing to mediate that feel free to handle it however or just ignore it entirely. Thanks, and I hope you're keeping well! — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I appreciate the request, although I'm spread a bit thin at the moment outside of Wikipedia. There's a chance I'll have time tomorrow, if not I probably won't be able to look at this before Tuesday. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Closure

I am reading through the discussion at Talk:Armenian-controlled_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested_move_21_October_2020 and (also Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions) and would like to close it. I'm not an admin and I also see that you indicated your intention to close it. May I close it? VR _talk 02:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, go for it, my statement of intent was more to placate the NK conflict regulars that someone will get around to closing the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I just closed that discussion...only to realize that I can't move the article because it is move protected. So I filed it as an uncotested technical move request here per Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure (Editors are permitted to close the discussion and file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion.) If you notice anything improper please let me know.VR _talk 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, looks good at a glance, thanks for taking the initiative on this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

NPP/School application

Hello there. I came here to ask if you would be interested in being my NPP school mentor. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, I'm unfortunately swamped this week and can't commit right now. If you haven't found a mentor by the second week of December or so I can look into taking you on as a student. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

Two users reverted my edit, one calling it "nonsense", other says it is the "last warning" although I never had a warning by him or by other user on that article. Relevant diffs:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_(Iran)&diff=990128902&oldid=990050481
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_(Iran)&diff=990131141&oldid=990130477

Second user says: "Azerbaijani" has nothing to do here, last warning. Isn't that lying. And do you see any disruptive editing here? I changed the language to south Azeri instead of northern version, and added category for Azerbaijani irredentism, while the article mentions irredentism. Could you please say your opinions? See relevant talk. Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, I don't have time to look into this this week unfortunately, you're probably best off looking for help elsewhere if you want anything to happen before mid-December. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Divisione Italia

Ciao: in history there were various [Divisione Italia], including those formed by emigrants in South America. Moreover, Italian fighters have massacred each other by themself in Italy and everywhere across the past centuries in world's history: I renamed a red link. No problem and regards.--Passando (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

NPR

Hi Rosguill, I seem to recall that you were open to granting me NPR or at least another trial. Would that be possible? I'd ask at perm but I never fail to create drama there. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Zindor, in principle I would be willing to look into it but right now is a really busy time for me so I can't promise that I'll be able to get to it anytime soon. I would suggest you ask at perm, I'm not really sure what would cause drama there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding. I've now asked at Perm. Zindor (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input on Template:Talk header

Hi Rosguill! Since you were the closer of the sidebar follow-up, I was wondering whether you might be able to offer your perspective on the matter at Template talk:Talk header#Sandbox. To boil it down, it's a continuation of the disagreement over which introduction page is best. As part of a suite of changes, I proposed that we update the template's link from WP:Contributing to Help:Introduction. Moxy objected, raising some of the same arguments they did at the discussion you closed, and no one else took a side. I still felt comfortable including it in the sandboxed mockup which we subsequently implemented, in part because of the precedent from the sidebar discussion and the other discussions where H:I has consistently prevailed. Moxy promptly reverted (edit summary: dont see anyone that agrees to this bad link), effectively demanding we establish a local consensus.

Personally, my view is that we've already held as large a discussion as we're likely to be able to have on the respective merits of the different intro pages, and that because the question doesn't meaningfully change based on the context (whichever page is best is best, whether it's linked from the sidebar or {{Talk header}} or somewhere else) we should go by the best precedent we have rather than rehashing the same dispute at every turn. I also believe that, per WP:CONLEVEL, Moxy should not be able to override with their sole objection the much broader discussions we've had on the intro page. How do you feel? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I should note that Robert McClenon graciously tried moderating a discussion between Moxy and myself over this (after I sought help at DRN), but it unfortunately didn't really go anywhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My position is simple....a talk about one page does not mean that every other help page should be orphaned and changed at every turn. This one edit of 500 is contested.--Moxy 🍁 05:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb, User:Moxy - I will comment that one reason that my mediation was unsuccessful was that neither of you summarized what the issue was concisely. I still am not sure what it is that the two of you are disagreeing out. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We have an editor replacing our main help page with an edit tutorial to the dismay of those that Graphics are aware of how editors navigate and read. We had a few rfc's that has now resulted in the editor orphanage our project designed community edited page that leads to all our different intros for this one intro ( this would be the exact opposite of what the help project intended). Your current revert has removed the status quo with a link to a format that has failed us in the past and is currently deterring 9000 potential new editors a day. One of the worst choices we have seen here in a long time. We have a new page in the works but the WMF is slow....but now I fear that the change over will be a sluggle.--Moxy 🍁 00:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, my understanding is that I reverted to what was established as the weak status quo following an RfC and remains contested by you, but appears to be at least tacitly supported by every other participant at Template_talk:Talk_header#Sandbox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually everyone else abstained at that page.... perhaps waiting for those with knowledge of how pages. :I will simply have to make a better case when I have time an make a new rfc. It's disheartening to see what is happening with the loss of accessibility the new pages have caused. It's hard to watch the advice of our accessibility and help projects rejected. Years of data and research went down the drain by one good intention new editor. We are talking about a page that was put to the way side years ago because we know the problem with retaining readers with modules. Now that page is over 70 pages long and is not able to retain 10 percent of its readers after the first page that has zero serviceable information on it. This retention result is even worse then our 2 other module experiments from the past "Tab tutorial" and the " Wikipedia adventure" that we learned a great deal from. That said no intent on any deletion as our readers should have a choice in style as different readers have different preferences thus why our main prose help page links to all the different intro, normal help pages and the missing manual etc.... some design by the visual editor team... some by the helproject... some by the educational team and others by individual editors. It's too bad the main community pages is being orphaned and I fear it's only going to get worse now. Perhaps best the Next Generation learns for themselves.--Moxy 🍁 02:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see that User:Moxy feels strongly that some approach is wrong. I can also see that there has been a complex RFC that was, unsurprisingly, largely inconclusive. At this point I think that I was right in originally closing the DRN thread, and was probably mistaken in reconsidering and trying to moderate. I still don't understand what the issues are. If there is another RFC, please notify me so that I can participate in it. Otherwise I think that I am accomplishing nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC are not always the best thing. What we have is editors not familiar with how to be present information making random votes. As seen at both RFC those that work on help pages brought up the many problems but were overwhelmed by those that think the page "looks good"....who dont care about editor retention or have every edited help pages. We are now loosing potential editors on mass. 2 pages linked for our main page both are peaking peoples interest (10,000 hits a day) but once they see the first page with zero info and action buttons they turn away from reading more (not even 1000 move on to a second page). We already knew about this behavior as we have tried it before 2 times...having collected lots of data with the knowledge that people wont read thru multiple pages to find serviceable information especially those on mobile devices and the fact action buttons are a deterrent for older editors (the type we are looking for). I understand the community cant always get it right...but in this case its causing us to loos many potential new editors. As seen above process was more of a concern then content presentation to the dismay of our project.. --Moxy 🍁 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

not familiar with how to be present information making random votes welcome to democracy. Ultimately, you have to make the convincing argument (to people less familiar) and if it fails to gain traction (regardless of whether you were right or not) there's not much that can be done about it. The rest of us mostly abstained on template talk because I (and I presume others too) have no clue which is actually better than the other, but I find the pageviews an unconvincing argument. Whilst it may be evidence that Help:Introduction has poor clickthrough, it is not evidence that it is worse than its predecessors (which may well also have a low reading rate, or immediate "close tab", but since it's all on one page that can't be measured).

The project has seemingly failed at increasing new editor participation for years now, so what we're doing now isn't quite working it seems. Hence, I think it's better to try something (based on some kind of reasonable logic), than do nothing. Sidenote: I'd like to see data on what proportion of our most active editors in mainspace and projectspace, separately, are older-time editors; e.g. what year they first hit 100 edits / became autoconfirmed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Stats Wikipedia adventure tried as the main link after its grant in the summer of 2013. Wikipedia tutorial tried in the summer of 2016 after I updated it the summer before (sad outcome for lots of work) and then our new intro implemented during the pandemic when one might think we should have had a surge in new editors because everyone was home...but what we got was close to our worst month every just last month. Not one of these intros has info on registration on its first page. You are correct that we have no clue if people read info when all on one page but at least we know the info is on that page they are looking at...no point in many pages if noone is even loading them to view them. --Moxy 🍁 13:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Teqvoly moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Teqvoly, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, not sure why the script decided that I should get this notification, as I nominated the redirect for RfD but did not make any further edits. You may want to notify editors more involved in editing it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you check?

Could you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetaMask? It does not look like it's close to a consensus. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, were you just looking for someone to close the discussion or was there something specific that you thought needed looking into? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it does not look to be a clear consensus so if you want you can close it as a no consensus or whatever you want. I was asked to add my comment on the afd and did it, but it looks just like a mess. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, ok. I may take a look if I get a chance today, but generally the AfD-closure backlog is well-managed so I would expect that someone else may get to it soon regardless. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Rosguill, you did a really good job reviewing pages. Thank you. Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 18:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill

...is it Rosguill or the conflation Rosguil since they can't tell themselves apart? Drmies (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, it's the latter, I don't remember why I ended up adding the extra L. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha--how appropriate. What's the first thing you remember? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I was going to ask "last as in first or last as in last" but now that you changed your question that's even more confusing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

[6]! Drmies (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I suppose it would be a stretch to shout "rhetoric!" and claim the point? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I would like to thank you for patrolling all of my pointless redirects, however, I do not appreciate the unpronounceability of your username. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, I tend to think it's pronounced roz-gill but it's hard to tell because no one ever has to say it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request on a template

Hi! So, I had an edit request on {{Country data Azerbaijan}}, as its edit-protected at the moment. Currently, {{Air force|Azerbaijan}} shows the flag of Azerbaijan, rather than the flag of its Air Forces. I believe it is related to the country data template. So, could you help out? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I don't do much template editing and don't really know off hand how to go about fixing this issue, although your proposed change seems correct. As a side note, I don't see any actual edit request from you at the page in question _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, well, is there anyone you know who can fix the issue? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I would ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. Looking at the template's code, it looks like no one has set up any special behavior for "Air force", so it makes sense that it's defaulting to the normal flag. As far as the template is concerned, you may as well be typing gibberish. What needs to be done is to add a special case for Air force with the correct thumbnail along the lines of what's been done for the other branches of the military. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you for your time. I'll make a request there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove request of a Note

Please remove the note inserted in the Mioty article here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIoTy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkis0 (talk • contribs)

Assuming you want me to remove the {{notability}} template, the additional sources you've provided appear to be either primary sources ([7], [8], [9]), press releases ([10], [11]), or else are published in trade magazines that don't appear to be reliable ([12]). The notability issues have not been adequately addressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Rosguill,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations

Please accept my warmest congratulations on your reward. Thank you and best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, I didn't actually win anything this year, although the goodwill is appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Still, 63,000 reviews is quite impressive—you nearly beat the bot! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Request For Review/Input

Hi Rosguill (talk · contribs) - I would love your input/thoughts & such for my draft Draft:Michael Weist -- based on your experience & knowledge. This draft is part of Article Rescue Squadron and has quite a long history, including a creation protection. As such, I've worked to expand, fix, properly format, and cite - but would LOVE your input - Thank you!  :) Viralmemes (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Viralmemes, right off the bat, the article comes off as extremely promotional and likely needs a top to bottom rewrite in order to be acceptable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What happened to Rocket Mortgage?

Why was the page for Rocket Mortgage deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Mortgage

Seems like a better case for changing some of the language than outright deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019valley (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote in the relevant edit summary, please submit Draft:Rocket Mortgage through AfC rather than copy-pasting it onto the redirect's page. Copying articles in this manner breaks our edit attribution, which can cause copyright issues for Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing title of Wikipedia article

Hi, Rosguill. After discussions on the Talk-Page of Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism, contributing editors there have decided in favor of changing the title of the article to "Capital Punishment in Judaism." The problem is that there is already a Redirect under that name, which redirects to the very same article, and which prevents us from changing the title. I went to the "Move" section and, when I tried to change the title, received a message that the page's title cannot br changed, since there already exists a title by that name. Can you please help us fix the problem?Davidbena (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena,  Done and implemented as a swap. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A thousand thanks!Davidbena (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Weser Renaissance

I looked around a bit and found several international reviews of their recordings. I put one in external links, but am too tired to format it (and others) properly and use. Can you please simply withdraw the deletion proposal. I'll have time next year, - now its Beethoven - Christmas - family. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, done. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Typhoon Molave

Hi Rosguill, wanted to let you know that you moved the article Typhoon Molave but you forgot to move the talk page (still at Talk:Typhoon Molave (2020)) where the requested move is also still open. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

BegbertBiggs, not sure why the talk page got left behind. My failure to close the RM was because I came across the page in the new pages queue as opposed to the RM log. It's all been taken care of now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CTang04

Hi this edit just showed up mysteriously in the middle of my talk page. It looks like an editor you blocked two days ago trying to get round their block by dumping sources in the hope that other editors will continue their edit war for them. All the best Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, you're probably right, but this is petty enough that I don't see any reason to take further action. If their behavior turns more persistent or tendentious then broadening their block would be in order. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384

I just noticed the results of this RFD. Tavix mentioned Windows Photo Editor not existing, but I think that might just be because it's a technical name for the editing feature of the "Photos" app.
The result also creates a red link on File:Two Gormiti figures.jpg. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide references for this claim and add it to the article? I think a redlink on that file is correct unless there's specific information about that version we can direct people to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tavix: I tried my best, but I guess it isn't meant to be. No sources found. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Darn, well thanks for trying! I think I remember coming up empty when I did a quick check during the RfD. :\ -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Create red link or redirect for case of primary topic with one other topic?

Seeking your opinion for the situation where there is an article under a place name, and you become aware there is another place under the same name, mentioned somewhere on WP (black text only), and you wish to disambiguate. You reason the topic that actually has an article is indeed the primary topic. Is it better to follow WP:PRIMARYRED, creating red links for the secondary topic where appropriate, a two-item dab page at Topic (disambiguation), and add a hatnote to the dab page, or follow WP:ONEOTHER by creating a redirect to where the topic is mentioned and use a hatnote on the primary topic page? The caveat here is, in this case, the topic is a place, and the secondary topic is in Montana, so the red link or redirect would be Place (Montana), and the potential redirect target would only describe roughly where in Montana the place is, so it's unclear if it rises to the level of a redirect. Plus, I don't think a hatnote would be needed or appropriate on the redirect target page, though, as nobody reaching that page would be searching for the primary topic, contrary to the situation described at WP:ONEOTHER, so maybe I just answered my own question with this thought experiment. But, I'm still curious for your take on it (and wonder if maybe some additional explanation at these sections of WP:DAB might help others in similar situations). Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mdewman6, for these questions generally it comes down to the exact extent of coverage and relative prominence of the topics, which can be nigh impossible to guess accurately, but given how you've laid it out here PRIMARYRED seems like the way to go. It's rarely beneficial to direct readers away from the topic with the most coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Victoria sur le Parc

I thought that might be the case, since it seemed pretty well-developed, but since I can't see the prior version I threw the CSD tag on it. It's also why I marked it reviewed at the same time, since if an admin looked at, like you did, and saw substantial differences, I felt it passed notability criteria. Although I agree WP:TOOSOON might apply, I wasn't that stuck on it, since it is under construction. If they hadn't started construction yet, I'd agree, although I wouldn't argue with someone else who had that viewpoint, however. Thanks again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, I'm honestly surprised that the last draft made it to AfD, it was a two-sentence stub. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin Closure Question

Hi Rosguill,

Thanks for reviewing the admin closure request at: Draft talk:Shift4 Payments#Request for Comments re: Draft: Shift4 Payments. I have some questions. First, I don’t understand the “no consensus” closure. Three of three independent editors (not counting me) said it met WP:NCOP. Some did not like the draft because it included analysts reports, so I removed all of these and did a substantial rewrite. I pinged the editor who specified what he didn’t like about the content, and they did not respond. Prior to the RfC, I went to Help for AfC two different times. An editor there said they wanted feedback from multiple editors -- so I started the RfC. After the RfC was complete, I pinged them. And they did not respond. If I need to submit the draft again, I will, but the title Draft:Shift4 Payments is already taken. I can’t resubmit after a rejection. Is there an admin action that will clear this title so it can be submitted? Or do I just need to change the title? I don’t want to seem like I am going around the previous discussions, Thanks Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul.jonah.paul, this situation is highly unusual so there isn't really an established procedure. I've gone ahead and readded an AfC submission template to the draft, as well as a comment explaining the situation to any prospective reviewer. You should be able to submit it for review now. As for my closure itself, my thought process there was that editors seemed to approve of it on notability grounds but had some lingering concerns on COI/neutrality grounds. Thus, it's ok to resubmit it, but an AfC reviewer could object to perceived neutrality issues (at which point you could revise and resubmit). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

AFD Ghazi Bismillah khan

Hi Rosguill, not sure what to do about this I was NPP reviewing the above and tagged in for AFD via page curation but the request never went through to current AFD's. I removed the AFD tag so I could re-nominate via Twinkle which I did, but at the same moment another NPP patroller Modussiccandi also tagged AFD resulting in 2 entries now over there. Neither myself or the other reviewer are familiar with using XFD closer to close one or the other, can you assist? Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 23:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, 2nd nomination has been closed, sorry for bothering you. JW 1961 Talk 23:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Adopt-A-User

Hi, could you adopt me? You're an admin, and I'm hoping to be an admin, so is it possible you could help me get started on Wikipedia? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 20:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0, I would say that it's far too early to consider becoming an admin. What sort of editing work are you interested in doing? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

New page patrolling, counter-vandalism, mostly stuff that doesn't require writing articles. I am terrible at writing, so I stick to the more technical side. I was hoping you'd adopt me. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 21:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0, new page patrolling one of the most complex processes on Wikipedia, so I don't think it would be appropriate for you to jump right into that at this point. I would suggest stopping by WP:TASKS and trying some anti-vandalism, categorization, copy editing or fact-checking work. Work on that for a few weeks and see how it goes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0 I will do that right now. Quick question: Would this be a "yes" to the adoptee request? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 21:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0, I don't think there's any need for formal adopting right now. Get some more experience on your own and come back after a few weeks of work if you think you still need guidance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my redirects!

Hello! Thank you for reviewing my redirect pages of Toyotas. Please let me know on my talk page if one of the redirects is done incorrectly. DestinationFearFan (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor: Hania_Tarik - Blocked

Hi, I see that you have placed a block on Hani Tarik for paid contributions. Hani is participating in WikiGap Pakistan Online Challenge 2020 and all edits were made in respect to this Challenge. You can see her username (#24) on the official List of Participants. Since she is a new user, I would appreciate if you could please overlook it this time and life the block. I will advise her to ensure that in the future it does not happen and if she is ever paid or participates in the next Challenge she put its on her user page. I am overseeing the Gap this year. If you need more information, please leave me a message. Thanks, Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Challenge has now closed and any further edits will not be related to this year's WikiGap. Khilari&historian (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Khilari&historian, I'm willing to consider an unblock appeal from her, but I'm highly concerned by the nature of many of her edits. The pace of her work is almost inconceivable for a single person working alone, let alone a new editor doing the same, and many of the subjects she was working on (e.g. Draft:Sadaffe Abid, Draft:Seema Aziz) are high-risk for paid editing and have issues with neutrality and the use of non-independent sources. Her editing patterns bear other hallmarks of paid editing as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concern about her being paid for these articles. I know that she is not a paid editor (at least for these articles) and the motivation is winning the first/second prize (laptop or cell phone). The two articles you mentioned are actually those which have been suggested by the WikiGap team along with almost all of her other articles. Yes she has written a high number of articles but there are others with even more though mostly on the Urdu Wikipedia. Regarding quality, I have chosen to leave it to the larger Wikipedia community to comment on so that the WikiGap Team can claim neutrality in the matter. Tags for neutrality/non independent sources can be placed on them and she is responsible for making sure that the issues are cleared up. I hope this clears any misgivings you have regarding her contributions. I would appreciate if you would unblock her and restore her articles (or I can restore them if you agree). Thanks. Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Khilari&historian, I still have some lingering concerns, and would like to see an unblock request come from Hania Tarik herself, as I think that that could help clear things up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Rosguill, I have asked her to make the request as well. Thanks, Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Khilari&historian, I've unblocked Hania Tarik and restored the articles. I do have two suggestions for future WikiGap events that would help avoid this situation. The first is to tell participants to clearly denote their participation on their user page. The second is to not recommend everybodywiki (and similar offbrand wikis) as a resource on the suggested articles page. Pages generally end up on off-brand wikis after being deleted as spam from Wikipedia, so even if the editor importing the content may be working in good faith, they will likely be inadvertently reintroducing promotional content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill. I have noted your suggestions for future events and will forward them to the concerned individuals. Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Luke Hughes (ice hockey)

I 100% agree that Luke Hughes (ice hockey) is Wikipedia:Too soon and I think that one of the only reasons his article has been created twice is because of his "famous" family (fame is relative to hockey of course). However, I think he is very close to passing GNG so this may be a useful article to keep an eye on. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, in that case it may be worth asking the editor who created the most recent version if they'd prefer to see it draftified. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Free Nationals

The history shows that you moved the draft into article space in response to a G6 request. Was the G6 request made by an AFC reviewer, or by the originator? I don't have any objection to accepting the draft into article space, but I am wondering whether it was reviewed or simply moved, because gaming of AFC is becoming common (both when the use of AFC is expected and when it is optional). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the request was from SL93, who is an AfC reviewer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I placed a speedy deletion tag so that the draft could replace a redirect. If I did it the improper way, I'm sorry. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SL93 - That is what G6 is for. Thank you. Could you please look at Free Nationals (album), and see if it also should be accepted? Also, I will mark Free Nationals as a page that went through AFC; that is not important, but that is a nice-to-track thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I will start reviewing the album now. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I took care of it and placed a G6 tag on the redirect. Thanks for letting me know of the album. SL93 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you Happy Holidays! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Have a Happy Holidays!

CaptainGalaxy is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas).

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

— 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas dear senior colleague and wishing you a happy new year ahead. I never got the chance to thank you properly for taking a chance on me. Thanks for that my friend. Once again, merry Christmas !!!! Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Rosguill
	Hi Rosguill, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays

File:Christmas tree decorations 5.jpg	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
	Hello Rosguill, Wishing you a joyous holiday season and a happy and peaceful New Year. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 23:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your review!

Rosguill Thank you very much for reviewing the Matt Gallagher (filmmaker) article! Kind Regards, LorriBrown (talk)