NPP SchoolEdit

I am the new account of User:Eyebeller, I lost access to my account. I am interested in starting/continuing NPP School. I know we have started the school before but it wasn't going so well, therefore I would be happy to start again if you feel it is appropriate to do so. I have already done a significant amount of reading of relevant policies e.g. NOR, GNG, etc. to refresh my memory. I know this account doesn't meet the 500 mainspace edit count requirement, however if you could please use my old accounts edit count to meet that criteria, that would be appreciated. Thanks ProofRobust 08:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

ProofRobust, given where we left off in NPPSCHOOL last time, I'd like to see a new track record of good participation at AfD before restarting anything. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Can you please expand on this a bit? Should I post another message on your talk after I think I have a "new track record of good participation at AFD"? ProofRobust 21:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
ProofRobust Yes, basically I'd want to see a track record of participation at AfD that demonstrates a) thoughtful and accurate arguments based on policy and guidelines and b) the ability to handle disagreement without undue acrimony. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Can you please provide some input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Jubba Airways crash? I am unsure as to why they are being called "secondary sources". ProofRobust 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
ProofRobust, at a glance those sources do appear to be secondary, as they are published by independent journalistic outlets. What they may not be, and what I think you're picking up on, is significant coverage of the subject, which is important as well. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain how they are secondary? I do not see how they are analysing or evaluating primary sources? ProofRobust 19:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

BBC and AVHerald's cover appear to be based on local media coverage and statements from authorities, and provide context behind the comments as well. It's minimal, but it is analysis. I think the bigger concern here would be WP:LASTING--all current coverage is from within a month of the incident. That having been said, given that it received coverage in the BBC in English, I would expect there to be substantial local coverage, likely in additional languages other than English. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I have been starting to build a new track record of (hopefully) good participation. I know my participation hasn't been extensive, therefore I plan to continue participating in AfD. I do think I have demonstrated both of your criteria (at least partially) with my recent participation. I also feel much more confident in evaluating whether an article meets WP:GNG, a fundamental skill for NPP. Therefore, I would like to request again that we continue NPP School, although I do understand if you want to see more participation in AfD from myself before doing so. ProofRobust 22:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
ProofRobust, it looks like you're on the right track, check back in with me in a few weeks. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Checking back in with you. I believe I have demonstrated both of your criteria. I would like to carry on NPP School if this is OK with you but am open to any feedback/suggestions. ProofRobust 21:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
ProofRobust--indeed, I think your recent track record looks good. My only concern at this point would be that we had actually gone through most of the NPPSCHOOL training at the time we left off, so I'd need to draft up more materials for training. Looking at your old NPPSCHOOL page, it looks like NPOV corrections and identifying reliable sources may be the areas that could use practice. Does that sound good to you? signed, Rosguill talk 16:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That sounds great. ProofRobust 16:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Cool, I'll try to get some new exercises ready by the end of the week. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Please send me a ping when you have done that. I also would like to highlight that I am looking to get the new page reviewer right back when you feel I am competent enough to review new pages. ProofRobust 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
ProofRobust, I've added more source assessment practice at User:Rosguill/Eyebeller_NPPSCHOOL#Extra_source-assessment_practice signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  Done ProofRobust 22:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

November 2022 Deletion of page on "Priyadarshni Academy Awards'Edit

Dear Rosguill, i replied to your question on my talk page, but there is no response from your side. Pleasee reply to my query on my talk page. thanks. LoveAll (talk). 12:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Wrote on my talk page on Nov 16 "Kindly move the article to the draft space so that i can modify it to suit the neutrality point of view.
Thanks". please reply. LoveAll (talk). 11:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill, i have modified the article to suit the NPOV criteria. Please have a look.LoveAll (talk). 11:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to resubmit it through AfC. signed, Rosguill talk 13:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPP traineeEdit

Hello! May I ask if you have any open NPP trainee slots? Thank you! Silikonz💬 02:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Silikonz, yes, is there anything in particular you are hoping to practice, or did you want to do the full course? signed, Rosguill talk 03:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Not anything in particular; would you have any recommendations for me? Although, if I have a lot to work on, I'm willing to take the full thing. Thanks! Silikonz💬 03:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Silikonz, looking through your edit history, while you've done good work in anti-vandalism, I don't see much in the way of content creation. I'd ask that you try your hand at creating an article or two, then come check in with me again. signed, Rosguill talk 03:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That seems like some sound advice. Silikonz💬 03:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
You can take a look at Wikipedia:Requested articles, although it's not the most accessible page. Women in Red also maintains their own list of prospective biographies to write. If you're interested in writing about media, you can go to aggregator sites like RottenTomatoes or Metacritic (or alternatively, music charts) to look for recent media that meets notability guidelines. If you want a suggestion right off the bat, I've been meaning to write an article for Constitution of Zanzibar that you could take a crack at instead. signed, Rosguill talk 04:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your input! I'll have a look around. Silikonz💬 04:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hey Rosguill, on an unrelated note, does the Wikipedia Library not provide access for American National Biography? I've tried to access numerous articles of theirs through TWL (it appears on the dashboard for some reason), and all of them are still paywalled. Thanks! Silikonz💬 15:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Silikonz, can't say that I've ever tried to access that source, sorry! signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think I broke the Reliable Sources NoticeboadEdit

Just kidding, it's not quite that bad, but in trying to fix some typos in the header I fat-fingered my way into producing a duplicate post with the typos fixed.

That would be NBD but for some reason I can't edit the post with the typos to be able to delete it. I am not sure what happened, but if you can tell would you please delete the post about the Aswang Project that has the typos in the header, or if not maybe suggest someone who can help me fix this? My face is very red. Elinruby (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I've tried reverting myself and it tells me the post has already been deleted. Purged the page in both mobile and desktop view. No edit icon. Yes, it's signed by me, so the problem isn't authentication. Lighting candles Elinruby (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I think we may have had an edit conflict there. The problem appears to have been caused by a stray open [[ at the end of the subheading breaking the formatting. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, one of the typos was "[[" instead of "]]" at the end of the header. I could see it but I couldn't get to it to fix it, no icon. Thanks for the update, making a note to link in the body in future. Appreciate the rescue.Elinruby (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I was temporarily unable to post edits, got something about a 'CSRF token'Edit

Hi Rosguill, since you often review my articles, I wish to ask for your advice and help. Today, while adding referenced information to the page on 'Shekhar Pathak', suddenly, for a few minutes, Wikipedia began to not publish my edits, showing a note that I was logged out of session. I was actually logged in, and when I went on another page to see if I could make edits there, the same note came up. When I tried to logout, something about a 'CSRF token' came up, which prevented me from logging out of Wikipedia. I restarted my computer. Still the same message. All in all, this happened for about five minutes. Then, unexpectedly, I was able to logout, log back in, and make edits again. Should I be worried? Is this normal? Why did this happen? Apandeyhp89 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Apandeyhp89 That sounds like a networking issue, CSRF tokens are used to authenticate user accounts on a website. Either something went out of sync with your ISP or Wikipedia's servers had a hiccup. If it's working again now, I wouldn't worry about it. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Apandeyhp89 I hope you don't mind me "cutting in" here. I just wanted to make an observation/suggestion that there are many ways your editing session can be interrupted and fail, and there's no assurance that your edits won't be lost. A good idea is to make a local save of your edited content to a local file (e.g. copy and paste to a saved local file using a text editor) after every few minutes of editing, it's a little bit of a nuisance to avoid the great frustration of losing your non-trivial edits. Fabrickator (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Fabricator. That is a good idea indeed. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Rosguill. That's reassuring. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adoptedEdit

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Adopt me?Edit

Hello - I'm new here, and I want to get involved. I just made a profile page to explain who I am and what I am about. After making the page, which includes my adoption request banner, I saw that I can browse possible adoptees. I went through many, and yours stood out. First because you are an admin and mod. I want to make a difference. I'm not looking to get from A to Z immediately, but I am generally aware of what I want my Z to be, and I feel like someone who is an admin and mod could help me think through the best way to make maximum impact based on my skills. I then browsed your talk page to see your methods for conflict resolution, and I feel like I would approach things in a very similar way as you do. Which makes me think you and I might share some important values. Which makes me think you'd be a great mentor for me.

Will you take me on? I don't know 100% what I want to do here yet. You can read my page for more info about me to get an idea of what my unorganized thoughts look like, and perhaps help guide me. While I didn't have a particular interest in NPP until I saw the topic on your talk page, it does seem very interesting to me, and if that would be a good way to dive into this world a little quicker than the intro edit tools that I saw when I first created my account, then I'm all for it. And as I mention on my page, I just quit my job, so I have time to devote to new things right now. My only condition is that I spend my time productively. That can be following the path laid out on the site, which is excellently organized by the way, and very engaging and encouraging and welcoming - reading the guides and wikis and maybe watching some third-party youtube videos and starting to edit articles, improve things, maybe make new articles. That all sounds really fun and productive and it's in line with why I came here in the first place, and that's what I'll probably do by default without your input. But if there's an opportunity to talk to someone knowledgeable that might be able to provide some more personalized advice and guidance, I'd love that.

I don't need any kind of immediate return, and that includes intrinsic returns. But rather I need to feel like what I'm doing is good and right and that I'm progressing towards something that matters. In other words, I'm OK editing articles to add wikilinks, proofreading, etc. even though I think that I would get much more satisfaction from doing tasks that are more substantive and meaningful to me, but if that's a good path for starting out and learning the ropes, for ultimately making a bigger difference, then that works for me too.

Feel free to ask me questions. Most of this post is about what I like about you and why I think you can help me, but I fully intend for this relationship to be a two-way street. If there are ways that I can help you once you get to know me, I of course would welcome the opportunity, and would hope for it.

I hope this was an OK channel to post this. I assume DM isn't a thing on wikipedia.


RickyDeeds RickyDeeds (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

RickyDeeds, given that you're just starting out editing, I recommend checking out our task center, which describes and provides relevant links to various fields of work that should be a good way to get your feet wet. Beyond that, as much as I can sympathize with the desire to be able to edit Wikipedia full-time for pay, there are very few opportunities to do so, and most editors who are also employed by the WMF exclusively do non-editing work in their WMF capacity; I wouldn't set your editing goals around trying to parlay your editing into a job. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Got it. I'll start at the task center, and I will remove monetization from my mindset with respect to what I want to do here, which really seems for the best anyways. Thanks for your help! RickyDeeds (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


I was wondering if you could give me some advice. I am just going to type out my thoughts here. I feel that my NPP School peformance is being negatively held against me without consideration that most of the school was done 2 years ago. As I have stated before, if I did the school today I would have done better - not perfect but significantly better. Additionally, I do not think that NPP School proves my true abilities and I don't think it ever will. I think I am much better at reviewing/patrolling rather than creating. Therefore I might easily identify an article that is promotional or has neutrality issues but I will struggle to rewrite it to be an acceptable article. I have said this before but I truly believe I have the potential to be a competent new page reviewer. I have attempted to prove this through participation at AfD but this seems to be cancelled out by my NPP School performance and not considered. My current request for new page reviewer permissions was simply marked as Not Done for failing NPP School. Whilst this is an understandable response I struggle to see how I can make a reviewing administrator overlook this. I can not redo the school - is this going to be held against me forever? If I had not done the school in the first place, I am almost sure I would have been granted the right on a temporary basis today. I really would like to patrol new pages as it is something I would fine enjoyable. However, this situation is draining my motivation. Additionally, I do not feel that my current request is going to go any further. The Administrator is not responding and seems to have abandoned the request despite repeated attempts to engage in a conversation and come to a resolution. Anyway, this is mostly irrelevant and I AGF. However, this does not simply mean that I can simply re-request soon as the Not Done reason will be "see last rejection". So really, I am stuck and not sure how to get out of this situation. I really don't know what to do. Once again, I am seriously considering WP:CLEANSTART but am taking one more chance to try and see what I can do on this account and avoid unnecessary work for myself. To me this whole situation seems completely unfair. I am not blaming anyone for anything but as I said my desire to learn and improve is being held against me. I actually think that I learn more by getting a question wrong, receiving feedback than getting the answer straight away. I think this can be said for a lot of people. So I have really learnt a lot from NPP School but when an Administrator sees it all they will see is a page which has a lot of red crosses. I do not feel like I have had a real opportunity to even learn from my mistakes. It is almost as if "you got it wrong - you will never be trusted with this". But as I have said numerous times before, I do not think NPP School is a true representation of my abilities. Your thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated. ProofRobust 22:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

ProofRobust, you have a severe lack of WP:CLUE if you think writing this to me was a good idea. I have repeatedly, if politely, told you that I don't think you are ready for NPP permissions. Your response was to ask for them anyway, harangue the other admin who said no, and now to come begging me for help again. If you wanted my advice, you should have paid attention to it earlier. signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Your advice said to write articles which I said I will not be doing. Do you have anything else to add? ProofRobust 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I think you have been extremely unsympathetic and unhelpful. If Administrators treat editors this way - Wikipedia is definitely not for me. I think that the conduct I have seen from Administrators, not just yourself, is unacceptable for users who should be exemplary. ProofRobust 01:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
You've wasted enough of editors' time across your various meltdowns. Good riddance. signed, Rosguill talk 02:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Fastily, care to chime in at all (and see the edit history as well)? signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Yup, left a warning on OP's talk page. Regards, FASTILY 05:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Review questionEdit

Hey mate, I see that you have reviewed many of the new pages and redirects that I created, so I figured you might be the one to ask. I was wondering if there is a way to tell whether a page has been reviewed other than through our notifications? I accidentally marked mine as read before checking which pages had been reviewed. Right now I'm specifically looking at this redirect, but I would also just like to know how to check in general. I wasn't sure where to address my rationale for this redirect title, and I know we have to be careful with topics that broach WP:FRINGE, so I put citations from the media referring to Pais' work in this way on the talk page of the redirect. Thanks in advance. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Enix150, you can check a page's review status by going to the logs. There's two ways to get there: you can look up the page using the search form at Special:Logs, or you can go to the page's history tab and hit the "view logs for this page" button below the title of the page signed, Rosguill talk 02:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I didn't think to look in the page history. Judging by the fact that I only see my creation of the page in the logs, even with all filters enabled, am I correct in assuming that the page has not been reviewed/patrolled yet then? Is there any way you could possibly review it and/or the target article it redirects to? I am also curious as to what the review process entails, but looking through your talk page I see that there is a lot to learn on that front, so I will do my own digging in the meantime. Thanks again! Enix150 (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Enix150, you're correct that it hasn't been reviewed. You can read more about the review process here. I don't do reviews on request, but the backlog is currently rather short so you can expect it to get reviewed soon. signed, Rosguill talk 07:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Your personal attackEdit

Dear Rosguill, I invite you to withdraw the comment you made against me per WP:NPA. As an Administrator, I hope you are familiar with this policy. Please focus on this part: Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. I hope you will make the right decision. Regards, ProofRobust 10:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ProofRobust, I was more rude in my last few responses because I genuinely thought that was the only way of getting through to you, as you completely ignored or misinterpreted my more polite attempts to steer you to the right track. Your continued belaboring of this point is only further convincing me that I was right to not give you advanced permissions, and that any future attempt to do so, on this account or a sockpuppet, is only going to end with you getting into spectacularly disruptive fights with other editors once again. With regards to your NPP work, I'd say you're a B- student in terms of mastery of relevant policy, and an F in terms of your temperament. Cease and desist, kiddo. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning. Now, is there anyway which I can move forward with the aim of getting closer to gaining new page reviewer permissions? ProofRobust 19:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is not much I can say that already has been said by Rosguill (Who has replied to you with an admirable amount of gentility) but do know that the sheer intensity that you have on gaining this privilege will only hurt you in the future. The Night Watch (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not consider expressions such as "Cease and desist, kiddo.", and "Good riddance" gentle so obviously we have differing opinions on that. That is why I am doing a WP:CLEANSTART as that is clearly the only way to go. My requests for help/advice are being ignored/result in personal attacks being thrown at me. If someone would just talk with me properly this whole situation could have been avoided. ProofRobust 22:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe an editor once told me "I don’t want to waste my time explaining stuff to people who won’t listen.". It's good advice, in general, and worth reflecting on. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I said that I am willing to listen to your advice. I only said that I wouldn't create articles. Do you have any other advice for me? ProofRobust 22:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!Edit

  Merry Christmas, Rosguill

Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice!
As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to
recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia.
May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity.
Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy ChristmasEdit

  Merry Christmas, Rosguill

or whatever else you may celebrate at this time of year.

Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia throughout the year

and may 2023 prove to be a happy and successful year for you and your family

Josey Wales Parley 20:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. Best regards RV (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Third Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Wishing Rosguill a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

IBM 370Edit

No objection to the close, but wanted to bring out that there was one voter not preferring the current target (other was the nom) who had his queries answered / responded to. So this may not have been a divided decision. Jay 💬 05:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I realize now that I had read Chatul's participation immediately prior to the relist as a separate editor from the nom, which gave me a false impression that dab had more support than it did. I have amended the close to keep. signed, Rosguill talk 06:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

For the recordEdit

Hi Rosguill and El C, hope you're doing well and happy holidays. I don't have space to comment in AE but I'd like to clarify one thing; it seems like Abrvagl brought up a talk page snippet from this discussion in their latest AE comment. I'm not sure if I have to reply to that or not, but it was part of a larger discussion about the wording of this stamp section in the article, among other things. The summary of it; I tried to find additional third party sources that supported the current wording ("seemingly depicting"), Abrvagl raised issues about the sources on talk (and apparently I find new things in AE they didn't mention on talk), they later asked me to take to RSN to which I replied if they think there are issues with the third party sources, they should take to RSN themselves. That's it. I haven't even used these sources in the article as I generally try to get consensus before adding something that I know will likely get contested based on the talk discussion.

What I don't understand is why are they bringing up a snippet from a larger discussion to AE without replying for a week now (as you can see my reply is the last comment) or taking to RSN? And they haven't even mentioned this discussion snippet in their initial report diffs, perhaps maybe just maybe because this isn't AE worthy at all?

p.s. Regarding that stamp not being registered by Universal Postal Union is also true which I show here with a source. For the record, it was just part of the discussion and my reply to Abrvagl's "online hysteria" comment, and I didn't even suggest adding it to the article, nor (again) I ever added it. I just find it problematic cherry-picking these snippets from large discussions without providing full context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, you should not be circumventing the AE board's word limit by splitting the discussion on the talk pages of reviewing admins. El_C 13:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
El C My apologies I just didn't have space to comment in AE. Should I comment in AE instead if you or Rosguill allow or it's not necessary? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, yes, at AE. I can't speak for Rosguill (maybe they don't mind), but my position is that splitting the discussion like this comes across as you trying to be clever with the word limit, which is a bad look. If you'd like to trim your comments at AE, just add a diff of the items that were removed. El_C 13:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Understood. I just wanted to comment regarding the talk discussion snippet Abrvagl brought up. I don't think I can fit this in AE no matter how much I trim, I'm at the 500-word limit currently. I'll give it a try, maybe it works. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
A couple more hundred words would be fine. El_C 13:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirect reviewingEdit

Since you pulled back, we are running at double the backlog (two months now). Josh and I are doing most of the reviews as of late, but combined I don't think we are doing as many as you did. I've been waiting to see if you were taking a temporary break, but it appears not. If that's the case, we are going to have to ask more people to help out with redirects. If so, I'll bring this up in the next newsletter so let me know. MB 03:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

MB, thanks for reaching out about this. To be honest, I'd taken a step back because it seemed under control. I think that now that redirects have the same backlog date as articles and neither are slipping past the end date of the backlog, there's less of a need to address redirects qua redirects and efforts can be directed to just keeping the queue as a whole in check. signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Joey BadassEdit

Can you enhance the close statement for WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 22#2000 (Joey Badass mixtape)? Jay 💬 06:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with much of the closing statement except the argued for deletion outright part, which you may have referred to the vote by Ss112. If someone says I don't mind if this is deleted, but ..., I would not see it as outright, but either as a second choice, or conditional. Jay 💬 07:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Not quite, the "outright" part referred to the nom argument--I agree with your reading of Ss112's comment. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 22:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Saw you tagged this for notability, then noticed the claim in the lead that they are Emmy-nominated. Now, I agree with your tag, but was interested in hearing why you think the article currently doesn't establish notability. I just want to see if it's for the same reason as I had. Oh, and Happy New Year! Onel5969 TT me 17:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy new yearOnel5969! It looks like one of those cases of award-by-proxy, where Younger was part of a large team working on a film that collectively got nominated, but nothing that I can see points to Younger's individual notability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Bingo. That's exactly what I thought. In addition, the source used does not mention him. Onel5969 TT me 17:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2022Edit

  Redirect Ninja Master Award
For over 49,000 redirect reviews during 2022. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award

For over 2,000 article reviews during 2022. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock conditions per User:Call-me-Ishmae1Edit

When you handed out a topic ban on "telegony" to Call-me-Ishmae1, did you mean Telegony (the lost poem) or Telegony (inheritance), or both? Preferably, add a blue link to their entry at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Unblock conditions. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, I had erroneously thought that the inheritance theory was named for the poem and thus didn't specify in order to cover any overlap. I've edited the entry to specify it's for inheritance, and expect that Call-me-Ishmae1 is perfectly clear on the scope based on my discussion with them. signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw someone is doing paid worksEdit

Hello, Today While using my facebook, i searched for Wikipedia and was surfing over there and saw many Facebook Groups which provide Paid Wikipedia works one of them is "Md. Saidul Islam Rana", done by Facebook User Ameer Ali. I can send screenshots of that post. I had before added Akash Yadav (entrepreneur) for AfD is also claimed by Ameer Ali that he created that article in one of his Facebook post and many other articles. I Can surely provide screenshot for that also. How can we stop this. I pinged you because i thought you will help in this definitely. I am not so trained to start a sockpuppet investigation over this. You can scold me if I'm wrong. Thanks --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Akshata Prabhu also posted on that group regarding Wikipedia. Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll start a sockpuppet investigation for the various accounts working on these articles and ping you to comment there. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Check those posts here [1] and [2]. Can you check these? ---Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank You, for looking into my Message. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Again.. User:Jonysin recreated Md. Saidul Islam Rana. Check pls . Misterrrrr (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I had requested for Autopatrolled, am i eligible for that?Edit

Hello, Sorry to ping again, i don't think that you would give me autopatrolled. But still I'm asking for it. Am i eligible for that? If I'm eligible then please allot me, i am going to create many more articles in future. I saw that I'm also listed in list of eligible to be Autopatrolled. Please help. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I would ask that you make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled for review. Looking at your edit history briefly, your rate of article creations is high enough to merit autopatrol, but the granting admin would need to do a more thorough review for quality in order to assess if that would be appropriate. The relative newness of your account, created less than 2 months ago, is not in your favor. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I had already submitted a request there. I would do create more articles, Can you please grant me. I will be very Happy that my contribution to Wikipedia is being accepted by My Gurus (Teacher) like you on Wikipedia. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not going to review this request. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Thank You. I will wait for some Admin, if they grant or not. Still Happy. --- Hey It's Patnaite☝️ (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

By the Way Tour sourcesEdit

Since you said that the this revision of the By the Way Tour article needs to have sources that provide significant coverage, are the following sources okay?

Apter, Jeff (November 23, 2004). Fornication: The Red Hot Chili Peppers Story. (page 347)

Red Hot Chili Peppers, Mullen, Brendan (October 19, 2010). An Oral/Visual History by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. (page 211)

Red Hot Chili Peppers plot first U.S. dates behind 'By the Way'

The Red Mellowed Out Chili Peppers

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Live At Slane Castle (5.1/DTS)

Tattooed Love Boys (page 3)

These sources are used in the Tour section of the By the Way album article.

Additionally, I found these reviews of the Live at Slane Castle DVD:

Live at Slane Castle

Red Hot Chili Peppers at Slane Castle 2003: a festival concert to get you through the lockdown

Are any of these sources acceptable? Thank you in advance!

Chris25689 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris25689, the NYT review is definitely a good source. The Livedailynews article is less helpful for establishing notability because it was published in advance of the tour and seems PR-ish. I don't have time to chase down the book sources right now, but those would be a "maybe" for notability purposes depending on both the depth of their coverage and the extent to which the author/publisher were independent from RHCP. Tattooed Love Boys, meanwhile, seems clearly not independent as a blog by (for?) Frusciante.
For the second set of sources, the first one is user-generated, so that's not reliable, but the second one looks good. All in all, I think you're well on the way to establishing notability and are only a little bit short of making the article a shoo-in. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Fifth First Edit Day!Edit

  Hey, Rosguill. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Bukky Leo WikiEdit

Hi Rosguill

I have been helping Bukky Leo as a PR consultant, as you can see I have been working on his Wiki draft and submitted it several times for review, most recently I added a Guardian reference. All the references I added were notable, but I felt the Wiki was being rejected unfairly. Also Paul W told me I could subbmit notable offline references, as long as they were from notable sources, which they were via The Guardian, and Telegraph, even a chart position, but the Wiki was still getting rejected. Bukky then was contacted by someone offering to get the Wiki page verified, he definitely did not pay anyone, including me. There has been no violation of Wikipedia's policies.

In any case, I can now see this Wiki has been created, cut n pasting and editing the draft

How do we now introduce links to it, do I need to find other Wiki pages that reference Bukky now?

How do I merge the page history of the draft with the new page?

Hope you can help?


PressgirlV PressgirlV (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

PressgirlV, as you have already been notified on your talk page, you are required to comply with our WP:PAID policy. As an employee of Bukky Leo, you are considered a paid editor by Wikipedia. There also appears to have been sockpuppetry involved in promoting this article--you are advised to come clean about any additional accounts that have edited the article on behalf of you, Leo, or any other party with a COI; failure to do so will likely result in your account being blocked and further actions taken against the recreation of articles about Leo. You also need to address your apparent conflict of interest with Carla Marie Williams on your talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill
I don't know what 'sockpuppetry' is but I am categorically not an employee of Bukky Leo. I don't have any aliases either. He was approached by someone who offered to get his page verified, but he hasn't paid anyone and they are nothing whatsoever to do with me. I have nothing to hide and nothing to 'come clean' about.
You have no reason to be suspicious, it's completely unneccessary.
For the record I have not ever received any payment from Bukky Leo or Carla Marie Williams, they are both friends who I have helped out.
Carla Marie Williams' Wiki page was already created by a former colleague at the BBC, Carla needed some help adding her discography, which I did as a favour to her. There is no conflict of interest.
In the case of Bukky Leo, he is a lovely old man, who has paid his dues and contributed greatly to Afrobeat and music overall, he was very much in need and deserving of a Wiki page. He asked me for a favour and I did it for him, I don't charge for this, he is an old man, he doesn't have much money, but he needed my help.
I am a PR consultant by trade, and I sometimes help people, I do quite a bit for people pro bono. I think of it as paying it forward. PressgirlV (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As I've already stated, and as explained in WP:COI, your personal relationships with these people are conflicts of interest. Comply with the relevant policies. Failure to do so will result in a loss of editing privileges. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock requestEdit

Hello Rosguill,

Sorry to bother you, my account was blocked due to copyright infringement issues around 1 month ago and i'm not sure if this is a bug or not but my unblock request has not been reviewed and it's nearly been 2 weeks, if this is a bug, can you please review it (since you were the only one who viewed my request) or maybe put it on a waitlist for review? Here's my account's talk page.

Hopefully someone can review my request so I can continue doing my best to make Wikipedia a better place.

Thank you,

Gtgamer79 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi - I confirmed all of the socks but the creator, who is stale, but I've blocked as suspected. Certainly, it should be not be in article space, but it's probably eligible for G5 - can I leave you to consider that? Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 11:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done, deleted the draft as G5 following another editor moving it out of mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

AE referral to the Arbitration CommitteeEdit

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad and WarEdit

Hello, dear Rosguill. Happy New Year. I wish every good thing for you in 2023. I think you would be the ideal person to review the draft page I have created < Draft:The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad and War > and wonder if you would please be willing to do so, if you aren't too busy. Thanks so much. WantingOnlyTheTruth (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi WantingOnlyTheTruth, I don't do page reviews on request. I expect your draft will be reviewed by someone else before too long. signed, Rosguill talk 05:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply and sorry for the misunderstanding. Best wishes, WantingOnlyTheTruth (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Came across this editor again during NPP, with Draft:Kelly McLaughlin. Which I've obviously moved to draftspace, due to its obvious COI/UPE concerns. Then I remembered Draft:Sara Lewis, which also has obvious COI/UPE issues. Looking at the comments on their talkpage, User talk:Lindakeb, MrsSnoozyTurtle also noticed their editing habits regarding Tufts. Should this go to some admin board for looking into for COI/UPE? Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 Yes, given that the first inquiry was met with a plain denial but suspicious editing is ongoing (Sergei Mirkin also fits the pattern), a noticeboard discussion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you patrol redirects so fast?Edit

Hello Rosguill! I am taking a look at how much patrols I have been doing and I saw you had done more than 3,000+ review on redirects in the past 7 days. How do you manage to do that? Do you have special bot or special method to do that, or you do it manually? Thank you very much! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Just manual, and I think you inflated my count a bit (I see 2,303 for the past 7 days on the database report). Most redirects don't take much--they're either self-evidently correct as an obvious alternate name for the target or are mentioned in the target article's text and thus can be reviewed in just a few seconds. I've been focusing on redirects for the past few days since they're currently the tail of the NPP backlog. I do add editors to the WP:RAUTO list when I come across prolific good-redirect creators, but those get checked off by DannyS712 bot III and don't count towards my total. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes it is around 2,000+, my bad. Thank you for your answer! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


Previously i left a message of your talkpage about a Facebook Group where Ameer Ali Salman was running Paid Wikipedia Creation Agency, Just Now i was surfing and reached that group, I tried to Find Ameer Ali Salman but is didn't got his account. Whatever, People in that group are offering people for Paid works and Some are doing there also. How can we fix that? How can i run a SPI? If i can run a SPI, then i would never ping you and make you feel bad. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Misterrrrr, the instructions for filing a sockpuppet investigation are laid out at WP:SPI. Enabling the option to automatically strike out editors who have been blocked, which makes it much easier to identify the masters of puppets in page histories, can be done from the Gadgets tab of user preferences. signed, Rosguill talk 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay Thanks For This Information and one more thing. I'm here informing you about one more person named Umair Ahmad. He is running a Facebook page see this [3] and a website too see this [4]. I think they are from the same Team as Ameer Ali Salman. Check the Facebook page, 3 people are mentioned there who gave them work. Check ahead. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Check more here [5] and [6]. It looks like his website isn't available now. Check these. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effectEdit

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Hello AgainEdit

Hey, How are you? Hope you're well.. i saw an article Nalneesh Neel, the person himself shared google knowledge graph screenshot to his Instagram Page. The creator and recent editors are sock blocked..! What we can do here? --- Misterrrrr (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the point you're making about the off-wiki activity here. There seem to be at least two different socks present in the history of the page, so in principle it would be reasonable to compare Phoenix0910's editor interactions (link), but the accounts' activity is old enough that checkusers are unlikely to be able to turn up any additional evidence. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, Sure. I understood. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for commentEdit


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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


hi. I wanted to ask about the possibility or options of being adopted by you? I could use some input. I see that you're an admin. that could be very helpful. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sm8900, what kind of editing work were you hoping to get mentorship around? signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
well, basically, much of my current areas of activity. recently, I have been doing some substantial work on some different navboxes. also, I am trying to energize some wikiprojects which I am part of. I can also use your general input and advice on some community processes, resources, and discussions that I am involved in, every so often. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Sm8900, hm, I can't say that I have much experience working on navboxes or organizing wikiprojects--if there are other areas of work that you want guidance on I can potentially help there, but you may find it more helpful to seek out a mentor with more experience in those areas. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That editor has already removed the discussion, but just wanted to thank you for fixing that. Onel5969 TT me 02:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 openedEdit

Hello Rosguill,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.



  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)



I found you on the adoption page and thought I'd ask if you would take me on.

I have tried with two other mentors initially.

Zippybonzo took me on but got busy and ToastGuard didn't have an opening when I went back.

I have also asked SoWhy but they didn't realise they were on the currently adopting list.

So here I am :)

If your interested you might have a look at the little I have contributed (and possibly the questions I have asked Zippybonzo on his Talk- some archived) and get an idea of where I am coming from and if I'd be of any interest. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Lukewarmbeer, what kind of editing work were you interested in getting help with? signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd like a go to person to help me:
Navigate the site generally
Understand what is a reasonable position to take in certain circumstances, particularly in potentially controversial areas (see for example Beira's Place Talk). It's easy to get sucked into these things and I have found that there are sometime vested interests in places I wouldn't have even expected. I want to keep the encyclopedia perspective to the fore in talk and articles. I need more knowledge and 'professionalism' to achieve that.
Ditto with RfCs
I'd also like to improve articles. See for example my talk page on Enclosure and Inclosure I was also going to do some work on possibly something innocuous like the Algerian Green Dam to get some more structured editing experience. I started but found it more complex than I expected. I'm no IT wiz.
Citations are something I have been doing. I'm not sure why we let so much stuff be posted that people can't be bothered to support with appropriate sources. I have added quite a few but sometimes when I am researching I find that the information I find actually contradicts the existing text. I leave it now when that happens as I'm not sufficiently confident to interfere. If I start rewriting I'd like, in the early days, someone to run that sort of thing by - so I don't do more harm than good.
Vandalism and recent changes patrolling also interest me. I have done a tiny bit of that but also need guidance both practical and editorial.
That's probably covered it :) Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Lukewarmbeer, alright, I should be able to help with that. Feel free to drop me a line any time. I should generally be able to respond within a day. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I have been reading User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist
I have to say that, at least to me, it is really well written and is the sort of stuff I think I need to read. It partially explains why "we let so much stuff be posted that people can't be bothered to support with appropriate sources".
1st question.
Is it appropriate to ask the originator to provide citations, possibly offer a little help with that. Then, if there was no time and effort on their behalf, call time on the contribution rather than feel obliged to try and substantiate that contribution for them? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it depends a lot on the context of the article/contributions. There isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather there's several things to consider:
  • Is the editor even still around to engage with?
  • Is the editor new? Or alternatively, have they been made aware of our verifiability/OR/etc. policies and guidelines? Is there a pattern of behavior at play, despite warnings or other attempts to engage with them?
  • Are the contributions in question a substantial, dedicated attempt to expand an article, or was this a drive-by addition, with the editor moving on to unrelated work?
  • Are the contributions' unreferenced claims plausibly constructive? Alternatively, do they look like POV-pushing?
  • What's your engagement with the article? Are you also engaged in long-term substantial editing of the page, or did you stumble on it in passing?
In general, when there's indications that the editor is making well-intentioned edits, and is able to engage with suggestions and constructive criticism, we should be as welcoming and collaborative as possible. But there will be times when an editor will be unwilling or unable to engage with criticism, and times when the malformed edits are of such poor quality that simply reverting them is more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Where are valid proofsEdit

Where are the sources for these changes, also you are editing informaton on enacted treatys. This information was not just added, if i cant be provided with evidence for changes im going to have to assume fraud. (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

So im very curious to of where you got your information from today, as of now of out thin air? Also i would have to assume they should be null and void if alterable (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the main sources used at Treaty of Tordesillas in the most recent edits are:
Miller, Robert; LeSage, Lisa; Escarcena, Sebastián (2011-08-01). "The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous Peoples, and Chile". Nebraska Law Review. 89 (4).
Coben, Lawrence A. (2015), "The Events that Led to the Treaty of Tordesillas", Terrae Incognitae, vol. 47, pp. 142–162, doi:10.1179/00822884.2015.1120427, ISSN 0082-2884, S2CID 130710301
Harrisse, Henry (1897), The Diplomatic History of America: Its First Chapter 1452—1493—1494, London: Stevens.
signed, Rosguill talk 00:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Show soucesEdit

Provide sources for altering longitudes and latitudes, removing kings and queens name, changing trip to it happened o it didnt, and that the cooridinates were previously correct. (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not the editor you should be discussing with. Take this up at Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas. It also seems like you may have misunderstood what content was changed in the edits, as the edit in question that you have been agitating against, Special:Diff/1137824467, does not appear to make any of the claims you're alleging here. signed, Rosguill talk 00:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Fraud and you know it 😘Edit

Altering enacted treatys, locations, trips, longitudes and latitudes , kings and queens names without providable souces. I screen shot all of this. This was not just added. This is fraud (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This is your final warning to take this to the appropriate talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Blasting this on all social mediaEdit

Do what you like (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)