User talk:Rosguill

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Adoption Request

[edit]

Hello Rosguill! I found your username in the Adopt-a-User program page as someone who is willing to take on an adoptee. I am relatively new to as a Wiki editor, but I've been reading Wiki for ages. Recently, though, I've been reading a lot of new material outside of wiki (mostly in the humanities), and I come to Wiki to double-check my understanding. I often find that articles could be drastically improved (for example: Fetishism, which I've started to work on.) I want to make sure that I'm revamping and improving this and other articles with care and according to Wiki rules, so I reached out to the mentor assigned to me by default. I haven't heard from them in quite some time, so I thought I'd ask for a new mentor. Would you be willing to mentor me? How does that process work? EspressoMachine77 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EspressoMachine77, I typically provide structured courses for editors who are interested in specific advanced permissions. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer questions and give advice but don't have much in the way of structured programming. signed, Rosguill talk 01:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I've also grabbed you as formal mentee, while I'm at it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill and @Asilvering Thank you so much for responding quickly! I will work with Asilvering as I get started. I would be interested in engaging with you, Rosguill, in the future for leveling up in the wiki editor world, so to speak, after I've worked on a few articles. Thanks again to you both đŸ™đŸœ EspressoMachine77 (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure Rosguill doesn't mind if you ask them newbie questions! Just, now if you use that mentorship module to ask questions, they'll go to me instead of your less-active mentor. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! thank you! @Asilvering, I already posted my first question on your talk page :) EspressoMachine77 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all!
I recently started getting into wiki editing and am very impressed by the context of edits regarding news sources, religion, and culture. I admire the dedication to linguistic learning and would love to adhere to conversations about political context of language and rhetoric. Ryankgabbard (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

[edit]

unashamedly,

Sandro1041 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bribe? I see that you blocked the donor of the goat. Maybe you can use the goat to eat disruptive posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate goats signed, Rosguill talk 23:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Failed DRVs

[edit]

Sometimes they don't learn. We don't need robotic appeals, and we don't need paid appeals by SPAs. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental warning?

[edit]

Are you sure that this warning to a user is what you intended? I only see seven edits by the user - those on Occupy Wall Street and Gazeta Wyborcza look to me like a "self-edit-war", i.e. only an edit war from the point of view of the robot that tags manual reverts. I suspect that the edit on Gazeta Wyborcza should be reverted, but I'm unlikely to get involved there, and at least for the moment, I don't see an edit war there. The Occupy Wall Street triple edit seems consistent with the adjective currently used in the lead there. Boud (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had only looked at the edits from the Special/Contributions view and saw the multiple edits of identical size and Revert tags and didn't think to investigate further. Thanks for the follow up. signed, Rosguill talk 15:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UEGN

[edit]

Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well.

There is currently a disagreement/dispute regarding the usage of WP:UEGN at the Battle of Maritsa - [1]. Basically, me and another editor seem to understand the meaning of WP:UEGN differently. Rather than waste any of our times arguing about something that we both seem to understand differently, I thought I should approach an admin and ask them how exactly the policy is to be interpreted.

Perhaps you could take a look at the brief discussion we've had thus far on the TP, and maybe you might be able to clarify how exactly that policy is to be understood, as there seems to be some confusion. Of course, I would not be upset if I am mistaken in my interpretation. I would just like some guidance, is all. Best. Botushali (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, having reviewed the talk page discussion, I think additional sources are needed to conclusively determine what the most common English name is for that place in the context of discussion of the 14th century. Fine is one such example. I don't think your argument that we should defer to the article name Shkodër quite holds, as that is clearly the common name of the city today, but not necessarily historically. Looking at the sources for the relevant sections of Shkodër, unfortunately most of them are not in English; the English sources are Fine, and Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, which prefers Ishkodra as it primarily discusses the Ottoman period, although it also opens the article by stating , the Turkish form of the name of the town of Shkodër/Shkodra (Slavonic, Skadar), which arguably indicates some preference for Shkodër/Shkodra in English. Searching quickly on Google Scholar does not provide conclusive results, as there's a lot of hits for non-English texts, as well as arguably separate topics like Lake Skadar and people with similarly spelled surnames. I think that the current evidence is inconclusive, and that a clearer answer could be determined by assembling a brief bibliography of English works on medieval Albanian history. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the help! I will try and find some sources and post them in said discussion. Just double-checking, WP:UEGN does not necessarily mean the historical English term used by English speakers at the time of the event, if you catch my meaning? The word 'historical' is throwing me off a little. Botushali (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Botushali correct—we are directed to use the term that English RS use today when discussing the given historical context in particular. Thus we use Leningrad when discussing the battles of WWII despite the city today being known as St Petersburg, but we don’t generally use Cathay to refer to China or Saracens to refer to Arabs when discussing pre-modern history because these terms have fallen out of favor in RS even when discussing the historical context.signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, now that finally makes sense to me for the first time on Wiki, haha. Thank you very much. Botushali (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you in that discussion again, for comment (if you feel so inclined) upon the section highlighted in crimson.  (I mean, feedback welcome upon the rest, too—it's just a lot to read, heh.)
In short:  I figure that the crux of the issue is whether the guidelines' "widely accepted historical name in context" means "...in the context of this conflict/campaign", or "...in the context of this time-period & area".  I.e., are the relevant works those few that specifically mention the city in the context of the battle?  Or the more numerous, but less specific, works that mention the city in the context of the late-medieval (~1200–1400) Balkans?
It seems to me that, by the former standard, the name should be given as "Skadar" (as both Shopov & Fine use "Skadar", while the rest of the works on the battle seem simply not to mention the city); by the latter standard, the name should be given as "Shkodër" (as the local historical name is, and more general sources use, "Shkodër").
(Or—if the relevant context is "English works on the history of the area, generaliter"—then probably "Scutari" ought be the preference... but it is a bit anachronistic.)
Thanks for any feedback; cheers!
Himaldrmann (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Himaldrmann that is an interesting quandary. On the one hand, being specific to the actual context you’re writing about is typically the way to go on Wikipedia, which would favor the Battle of Maritsa sources. However, given how narrow the topic is (“Battle of Maritsa studies” is not a field unto itself, and its scholarship is necessarily in dialogue with other scholarship of the period) it’s valid to consider other factors: which sources are newer? Which are published in journals published in English-speaking countries? If the newest English sources all agree on their terminology, that could serve as a tiebreaker of sorts. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's some confusion from gap in the guideline itself. WP:MPN clarifies old names may be appropriate, as in Battle of Ratisbon, and WP:PLACE#Alternative Names suggests articles about a place should include its many names. But it's ambiguous what to do when there is no "substantial majority" of sources using an old name; "substantial majority" from MPN seems at odds with Alternative Names' more inclusive criteria. Mentioning the modern name is mandatory, but I think it good to include some found in RS on a specific topic, especially if it may be done briefly. I'm thinking about discussing this at the guideline's talk page, with a view towards editing it. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think those guidelines are more intended to discuss what to do in an article that is primarily about the many-named subject, not so much how to refer to things in passing. I don’t think there’s any controversy at ShkodĂ«r to document all relevant names, but it’s potentially distracting to readers to include several names for a location mentioned only in passing in a given article. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point—I have been forgetting, throughout this incredible Wikitale of glorious intellectual combat (...*cough*), that the article isn't actually about ShkodĂ«r, heh.
    I do feel like the guidelines maybe are a bit ambiguous, here—at least, in terms of (a) defining the requisite scope for determining "widely accepted" or "substantial majority", and maybe also (b) defining a minimum (if there ought to be one) of sources to be used thereon (e.g. if there's one pertinent English-language source, do its choices constitute the relevant majority by definition... or ought we default, in such a case, to the "no RS consensus" condition?).
    @Edwin Herdman: regarding the possible gap you mention, the guidelines do offer the following, which seems perhaps applicable (to the "no substantial majority of sources using an old name" case; my pardon if you're already aware / if it's not relevant, though—I don't actually know the guidelines very well, heh, so I've no idea how related this is):
    If ... the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If there is no such name in English, use the historical name that is now used locally [...] If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. (WP:UEGN)
Cheers (& thanks to you, Edwin—and again to you, Rosguill—for your time & effort spent on considering this fairly niche little puzzle!),
Himaldrmann (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I did see that, and I'm rethinking a bit after your comment. We seem to have consensus RS use multiple historically appropriate names, but there's confusion or no consensus about implementing the guideline. WP:UEGN suggests using "the" single historical name, but there's more than one - I believe it's aimed at selecting one name to use throughout an article, especially articles about the places themselves, which can list other names. This dispute appears different - an article on another topic mentions the place in passing, but we want to clarify a couple names which appear in the RS specific to this topic. Back in the guideline, the sections "Emphasis," before WP:UEGN, and "Alternative Names" after WP:MPN, documenting different names is good. The research by @Rosguill and yourself suggest names for further developing the article, which is good. It's just that "Alternative Names" appears aimed at articles directly about a places, again. I like a compromise principle - multiple names may be mentioned when limited to those found in the topical RS. Scutari, though said to be familiar in English, isn't mentioned in topical RS and so I consider it not topical. For now that leaves "Skadar" & "Shkodër" and I don't think this requires a footnote. Finally, I believe the modern name need not always be put first - Shkodër can just be formatted to link its article. I hope that's not confusing, let me know! --Edwin Herdman (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of new RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs

[edit]

Hi Rosguill: You previously participated in this April 2024 RfC on community contentious topics and their relationship with ArbCom's contentious topics. There is now a new RfC on this topic that you may be interested in. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been aware signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chatbot Threads

[edit]

Thank you for notifying DRN. As you saw, we have multiple open cases, and closing one or two helps. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 00:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE Enforcement notification

[edit]

Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Selim_beg. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your decline of my unblock request

[edit]

Hi

I tried to answer your message on my page, but it kept giving me an error message. So I'm writing here. I hope that's OK.,

Could you please elaborate a bit more on your message? I'm not sure I fully understood it. I'll explain:

  1. You said I had partial block rather than a full one. But aside from talk pages, I can't edit any other page, so making it very hard to redeem myself, help the community and show I stand behind my commitment that I wrote. So can you please explain what you mean by "given that it's a partial block"?
  2. You said that it is in the community's hands at the ANI page to respond to me. I posted a lengthy explanation, apology and commitment going forward on the ANI page, and then posted my request for unblock on my page, as I was instructed to add the text to the bottom of my talk page, Toadspike left a message on my page with a reference to my post on the ANI page. And then you declined my request as an admin,.

So my question is - can you explain what I do now? Is my request still active even though you declined it? Do other people see it and can they respond to it? Do I need to submit it again or provide more information? Not really sure what I can/need to do now, and meanwhile I'm stuck.

Apologies again for posting here - it simply didn't let me respond to your message on my page. And thanks in advance if you can guide me and help clarify. :-) Sablc4747 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community will continue to discuss at ANI, evaluating your response and decide whether to maintain, adjust or remove the block. You're allowed to continue engaging, although I'd recommend that the best approach is to respond when people pose direct questions to you and otherwise don't comment. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

[edit]

Hello :) Hoping you might take a peek here. Take care! --tony 01:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your closure

[edit]

...at AN/I yesterday. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent Baltic RFCs

[edit]

Howdy. I'm not certain what @IdrapoelIII: is trying to do. But, he's messing up the RFC process. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to keep an eye on it, noting that Gigman has correctly re-opened the discussion and that you've already reached out to IdrapeoIIII on their talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned them at WP:ANI. I think this is likely an WP:CIR situtation, as they've again started up their own RFC. I've also noticed they're not communicating on their talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input, Italo Turkish war result section dispute

[edit]

Hi @Rosguill, I'd appreciate your input here on a long running debate over result of Italo-Turkish war (1911-1912). The discussion concerns whether the war's result should be "Inconclusive" or "Italian victory".

I've provided multiple academic sources (Primarily Cambridge, and other universities) to defend my point that Italy failed to achieve it's goals. While others insist on calling the result an Italian victory without providing a source, or refusing to look at my sources. Here, one of the editors basically admitted that they won't accept it no matter how long i write, which means the discussion has stalled. Here too.

Can you please review the discussion and advise how to proceed?

Thank you. Selim beg (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Selim beg failed to produce a consensus in his favor five months ago (as seen here). Three other editors disagreed with him that time. No other editor in either discussion has sided with him. Jon698 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selim beg has also made some odd comments such as "Turkish Wikipedia is weak, so people don't even bother to edit there." Jon698 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Turkish wikipedia is weak because people don't bother to edit there. Selim beg (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed Talk:Italo-Turkish_War#Result_Of_Italo_Turkish_War and Talk:Italo-Turkish_War#Gains_of_Italy, I'm inclined to agree with the majority. Selim beg, the sources you've presented don't support the claim that Italy didn't win the war with the Ottomans. They support the claim that Italy didn't completely control much of Libya until several years later, yes, but that's not tantamount to Italy not winning the war against the Ottomans. Without having methodically gone through the sources myself, it does seem like the Treaty of Ouchy's terms were completely to the favor of Italy and comprised several significant concessions by the Ottomans. signed, Rosguill talk 03:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't only present "Italy didn't control all of libya" so it's inconclusive. I have made several more statements including economical. Treaty of Ouchy is kind of neutral to both sides because it never grants Italy libya, nor the Ottomans. It also tells Italy to give millions of Lire to Ottomans. (article 3 and 10 of treaty of Ouchy.) Senussis filled the power vacuum faster than italians, so therefore treaty of Ouchy isn't in favor of Italy. Selim beg (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And none of the quotes you cite say that Italy didn't win the war against the Ottomans. You're engaging in original research arguments to present the case that actually Italy lost (or at least didn't win) because they suffered economically, but again that's not the same as reliable sources stating that Italy did not win the war; charitably, you've made the case that the war was a bad decision, but that doesn't make it a defeat. Meanwhile, it was trivially easy for me to pull up an academic source outright stating the Italy won the war ([2]). If you'd rather a source stating that the Ottomans lost, there's [3]. I would suggest that unless you can find a reliable source that outright asserts an outcome other than Italian victory, you should drop this matter. signed, Rosguill talk 04:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of my cited sources directly say Italy won either, I just show the quotes that link to Inconclusive so therefore it is not original research.
The sources I provided (including Cambridge) clearly show a theme: the war was a poor strategic decision, failed to achieve Italys objectives, both militarily and politically, Italy never established full control, faced ongoing resistance, and the Senussi grew stronger as a result, what did Italy gain? Some reputation, islands (they were only supposed to be temporary too) and some ports in Tripoli that they lost years after. How is this war an Italian victory if they basically gained nothing compared to what they lost?
The first source you cited clearly says it's a diplomatic victory, it explicitly says:
"And yet, the Italian imperial designs for the territory to be its quarta sponda (fourth shore) and the geographical and imperial imaginaries that accompanied it foundered a few decades.."
Thats not describing a victory, its emphasizing failure and only a diplomatic win since Ottomans withdrawed. But as i said, Italy didn't gain Libya either and this was agreed with another editor so we won't go through that.
about the second source you cited:
"The outbreak of the First Balkan War on October 8, 1912, compelled both sides to reach a diplomatic resolution through the Peace Treaty of Ouchy on October 18, 1912. The treaty was interpreted differently by both sides, and Italy delayed some aspects of its implementation. The treaty granted the Ottoman Empire the right to grant autonomy to the Libyan population under Ottoman rule and appoint two Ottoman officials; however, Italy accepted only the Sultan's representative and not the religious appointee (Kodet, 2013). As most of the Ottoman army began withdrawing from Libya, with some remaining, Italy refused to evacuate the 12 Islands and Rhodes and return them to the Ottomans. Italy succeeded in capturing Western Libya until the outbreak of World War I but faced difficulties in the east due to strong local resistance led by the Sanusi Sufi sect (Aliberti, 1993)."
All the sources i cited about the territorial gains disagree with this and say otherwise, what makes this more reputable than cambridge?
The source says Ouchy granted Italy autonomy over Libya, but it's the exact opposite:
"The public documentÂč known as the Treaty of Lausanne makes no mention either of the Italian annexation of the two provinces or of Italian sovereignty over them, but only of the Turkish evacuation of the two provinces and of the Italian evacuation of the Dode-kanese on the coast of Asia Minor"[1]
Some sources that give a pattern of no result (almost no academic source will directly say the war itself was inconclusive, we have to make the thesis ourselves by viewing what is inside the books.):
"In Cyrenaica, on the other hand, the situation remained virtually unchanged with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne (ouchy), and by the end of the year a marked antagonism had emerged between the two provinces. The Italians could not take any steps forward, and there was still occasional exchange of fire between Arab and Italian patrols in the immediate neighborhoods of Derna and Benghazi...[2]
the first time in world history, both for surveillance and aerial bombard-ment, opening a new era in twentieth-century warfare.95 Nonetheless, the Libyan campaign ground to a stalemate by December.
Mark I. Choate - Emigrant Nation The Making of Italy Abroad p. 176
I’d appreciate it if you could re-read the full talk section before deciding, since several of these nuances are lost if only the surface of the discussion is considered. Selim beg (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. Read the end of the first quote you lay out: And yet, the Italian imperial designs for the territory to be its quarta sponda (fourth shore) and the geographical and imperial imaginaries that accompanied it foundered a few decades after its victory in the Italo-Turkish War (1911-1912).
I don't intend to participate on the talk page or weigh in further on this dispute. signed, Rosguill talk 13:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It talks about a diplomatic victory. Selim beg (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, and even if it did, if it calls it a victory that's a categorical statement that should only be disputed with an equal or stronger source that is directly contradictory to its claim. You're off in OR land, and if you stay there much longer the community is likely to topic ban you from Turkish military history. signed, Rosguill talk 14:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But for you, this is completely normal? He basically said no matter how many sources, or how convincing it is, i will continue saying it's Italian victory.
WP:CONSENSUS "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view" He literally violates this.
Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not "Drawing non-trivial inferences is the heart of argument, and on talk pages, you're supposed to present arguments. As the policy consensus says, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."
This is exactly what i'm doing, so therefore Wikipedia allows it and on top of that it is not original research. Selim beg (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you highlight from Jon698 is not collegial, no. At this point, your main recourse is to call an WP:RFC to evaluate the question of Should the infobox on this page list a) Italian victory or b) Inconclusive. I would honestly advise you not to open the RFC: I don't think that your inferences from sources here are valid, and it's already a WP:1AM scenario. It is my prediction that the neutral editors called to the RfC will not side with your perspective, and there's a chance that they will call for sanctions against you for failing to WP:DROPTHESTICK. signed, Rosguill talk 20:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that was months ago and my thesis was Ottoman-Senussi victory. I have changed my mind to just Inconclusive. Selim beg (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Section, Great Britain Foreign Office Historical (1920). Italian Libya. H.M. Stationery Office. p. 23.
  2. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Italy-Africa-account-Tripoli-enterprise/dp/B009UX4IUG p.225

My recent edits

[edit]

At ANI, you said, They do not apply to subordinate clauses like Dummett held particular disdain for what he called "the most successful propaganda campaign ever launched", so should I revert that?-Baangla (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’d maintain that there should be no comma between called and ”the most
” signed, Rosguill talk 17:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks!-Baangla (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Rosguill. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences â†’ Appearance â†’ Advanced options â†’ Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

[edit]

Hi @Rosguill! I recently came across WP:NPPSG after being directed to it on the NPP Discord. I note you are the creator of the page. I think it is a very helpful resource for new page reviewers and editors in general. Thank you for creating it!

I have noticed that there is a fairly wide issue with "unknown" links (how the CiteUnseen plugin labels sources that have never been discussed onwiki). I have set up a page called WP:US/PS. All the information is on there, so I won't reiterate it all here. TL/DR is it's for sources that are commonly used, have never been discussed or gained any type of consensus onwiki, and aren't able to marked as unreliable due to NPPSG and WP:RS/PS requiring a discussion to have taken place. I've written a note at the bottom of the page detailing my exact reasoning and objective for the page. It is definitely not a page that tries to bypass consensus, instead it offers a way to give a provisional categorisation to any source that has not been discussed before. Once a consensus or discussion does take place, it is no longer eligible for that page and should be moved to NPPSG or somewhere else. I've received a few opinions so far, but I am interested to know your opinion, as the creator of the NPPSG page. Definitely give the page a quick read before replying, as it is a difficult concept for me to explain! Happy to talk over Discord if ever you get a moment! Thanks! 11WB (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11WB, seems like an interesting effort. My concern is that it seems like anything that would be useful to actually list on such a page will pretty much immediately become a non-candidate for inclusion because it will require a discussion. It's not clear to me how evaluations of sources on US/PS would be sourced. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources listed won't have had any discussion on Wikipedia. The aim is if a reviewer or an editor needs to know the status of such a source, they can check US/PS and see how another editor has categorised it. This would be without any discussion taking place. At such a time a discussion did occur for said source, it would be moved to NPPSG or somewhere else. 11WB (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, my concern is just that those assessments would be less than useful, not least because anyone who is familiar with the source won’t think to go cross reference US/PS signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That comes down to the fact the page was created yesterday. NPPSG and the other pages are well established on Wikipedia. I can't say at this time whether the concept will catch on. At this time, and probably for decent period the page won't be useful, as there won't be many sources on there. I hope in time, editors will come across it and maybe consider using it! 11WB (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s quite the same, because there’s a paradox of attention with the methodology you’re describing: editors familiar with a source aren’t going to double check it, they’re just going to use it. Editors unfamiliar with a source won’t have an informed assessment to add to the page that is worth others’ consideration signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this. I've oriented it toward the reviewer rather than the author. Whilst the existing lists are great, the majority of sources are unknown to Wikipedia. It would be futile to list every unknown. My main goal is to simply keep Wikipedia reliable. I assume you've read the note on the page, so you'll know my thinking in regards to an undiscussed source not necessarily being usable just because it's unknown. I really appreciate this feedback, it's given me the opportunity to see this from different perspectives, which is extremely helpful, thank you! 11WB (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research

[edit]

Hello I'm a student from LUISS university in Rome and I'm working on a presentation based on wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and one part of the work is to put myself in the shoes of a wikipedia contributor and find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages. The questions I would like to receive answers on are the following:

  1. What does the editor think and feel:
  2. What does the editor say and do:
  3. What does the editor hear and see:
  4. What are his pains:
  5. What are his gains (what does make him feel good when contributing):

thanks to whoever will participate in this survey :) Tartaluca (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These questions seem rather vague and not particularly useful to answer. signed, Rosguill talk 15:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
they aren't I'm conducting a research in order to make a empathy map and these questions are the process of years and researches but thanks for the unrequested arrogance Tartaluca (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to point out one concrete issue, with the first question: What does the editor think and feel [sic]--what does an editor think and feel when? In relation to what? You may as well walk into the middle of the university quad and ask "what do students think and feel"? signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is written in the introduction....."find out some feeling he receives when editing or writing pages" Tartaluca (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
E io sto dicendo, che i variazioni delle lavore di redazione sono molto diversi, non existono risposte adeguati. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ti assicuro che le domande che ti ho posto hanno piĂč che senso e che la loro formulazione deriva da anni e anni di ricerca da parte di studiosi. Se si provano sensazioni discostanti nel processo di compilazione e risposta alla mie domande possono essere messe entrambe. Noto un comportamento anti produttivo se non si ha tempo di rispondere alle domande o la voglia basta dirlo esplicitamente Tartaluca (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lasciame dare un consiglio como un academico ricercatore professionale. Cuando uno participante fara critica dei domandi della investigazione, dovrebbe essere considerato la critica como la sua risposta alla inchiesta, anche e molto importante riportare la percentuale dei domandi que foranno risposato in aquella manera, e la percentuale dei domandi non rispositi, insieme con tutto lo altro analisis della inchiesta. Non sto dicendo che voi dovrebbe fermare la inchiesta, ma questa pratica di prestare atenzione alle risposte critiche e centrale per gli studi osservazionali. signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
non ho capito bene ciĂČ che Ăš stato scritto, se fosse possibile avere una versione in inglese sarebbe meglio Tartaluca (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tartaluca spam

[edit]

Hello, I think you may be the only admin to have interacted with this user so far. My initial instinct is that it would be uncontroversial to say that using talk pages for off-wiki personal research easily meets the threshold for not here to build an encyclopedia. Do you have any insight on when or if this should be taken to a noticeboard?

And can you provide a summarized translation of the part of your exchange that was in Italian? Mikewem (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewem, I don't think it quite rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE unless they repeatedly disrupt forums or editors beyond a first inquiry. The Italian exchange was my re-asserting my English statement that the questions are too vague to be helpful, followed by them getting annoyed in response, followed by me giving some advice on how to engage with criticism and feedback as an investigative researcher conducting an observational study (a field where I have professional experience), and them then saying that they couldn't understand well what I wrote. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your good-faith attempt to help this user who states they are a student with what they state is their assignment.
And thanks for your response here. I’ll loosely keep an eye on this. Mikewem (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that their spree of rapid-fire, alphabetical order inquiries is maybe a bit more concerning than the rest of what I had seen a few hours ago, although that too appears to have stopped after about 15 minutes of dedicated effort, and even then, as long as they aren't repeatedly haranguing the same editors it seems like more of a hassle to insist that they stop than to just ignore it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ĐžĐŸŃ€Ń€Ń€

[edit]

бртю Circassian bubuzuan (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Circassian bubuzuan: Đ§Ń‚ĐŸ ж, ĐČы ĐČĐŸĐČĐ»Đ”Ń‡Đ”ĐœŃ‹ ĐČ ĐžĐœŃ†ĐžĐŽĐ”ĐœŃ‚ ĐœĐ° ĐŽĐŸŃĐșĐ” ĐŸĐ±ŃŠŃĐČĐ»Đ”ĐœĐžĐč Đ°ĐŽĐŒĐžĐœĐžŃŃ‚Ń€Đ°Ń‚ĐŸŃ€Đ°. ĐŸĐŸŃŃ‚ĐŸĐŒŃƒ, ĐżĐŸĐ¶Đ°Đ»ŃƒĐčста, ĐżĐ”Ń€Đ”ĐœĐ”ŃĐžŃ‚Đ” сĐČĐŸĐ” ĐŸĐ±ŃŃƒĐ¶ĐŽĐ”ĐœĐžĐ” туЮа. Felicia (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish

[edit]

Was a bit surprised to see anyone on the NPP language list for Yiddish. Have you actually studied it, or are you mostly working from knowledge of German? Ive started to make some efforts to learn it, and its upped my Hebrew reading fluency a bit. There is a good newish learning textbook out In eynem from the Yiddish Book Center. Havent bought it yet, but I will when I can afford to. Also saw Jewish architecture. I will add to that at some point, definitely an interesting topic that deserves coverage. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgist, I mostly learned it from my family, although the scaffolding of having more formally studied German and Hebrew obviously helps (Russian helps a little too, it's the source of a lot of Yiddish's vocab for higher education topics, sort of like the role of Latin and Greek vocabulary in English; the other language link I've noticed, not that it helps me much personally, is that there's a Baltic influence in some of the food vocabulary). Help with the Jewish architecture stub would be greatly appreciated--I don't quite remember the context of why I started it, I think I may have stumbled across one of the citations while reading up on something else. signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add some diffs

[edit]

At AE but not sure what happened because I am not accustomed to the new updated processes with the software. Can you please fix anything I messed up there? Do I need an extension of words to add in response to my detractors – is that what happened? I don't know. Atsme 💬 📧 18:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the AE page history it seems like your attempt to edit opened the wrong section of the page? That happens to me from time to time, especially on more active pages. I don’t think it relates to word count. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important !

[edit]

@Rosguill Sorry to ping you, but It was necessary because you recently gave NPR right to Destinyokhiria, user came to my talk page out of the blue. I know there is a very large article backlog, but as I checked this user’s Page Curation log, the user seems to be marking review articles even without any reliable sources, most of them are in logs AFD I have found a few. 1, 2, 3 4 etc. and there are many more, to me the user looks very new or inexperienced and may need WP:NPPS first or may be a COI case see. Thank you Pasados (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasados The examples you're linking here all appear to have been marked reviewed by Destinyokhiria after they were taken to AfD, which is perfectly correct procedure. Do you have any examples of actual incorrect reviews? signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm a little concerned that this complaint seems to have mostly been precipitated by Destinyokhiria agreeing with criticisms of your reviews. Extraordinary Writ seems to have already taken appropriate action there so I don't think that there's any further formal sanctions that would be appropriate, but this series of events as a whole does not reflect well on you at all. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but if you think Extraordinary Writ took appropriate action, and everything is perfectly correct, then I have to move on and reflect on myself, from today, I will stop my contribution to Wikipedia because it no longer makes sense. Thank you Pasados (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Allowing use of AE for community topicwide restrictions

[edit]

Because you participated at the recent RfC on the same topic or the recent ARCA request on the same topic, you are invited to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Allowing use of AE for community topicwide restrictions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Ukraine relations

[edit]

Hello. Do not remove categories. Eurohunter (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohunter, I'm not sure what this is in reference to. Did you mean to notify someone else? signed, Rosguill talk 23:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you replaced article with redirect, but categories should remain. Eurohunter (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was as the result of an AfD discussion. I don't see any guidance at WP:BLAR or WP:RCAT suggesting that categories should have been maintained on the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 15:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard of WP:GS/KURD

[edit]

Hello again Rosguill, sorry to always bother you like this. This user is currently violating WP:GS/KURD. Amongst other things they are currently trying to overrule the previous RFC at Talk:Kurds (through attempts at debating, i.e. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, also doing the same here [4]). They have no issue in telling me to follow it for some reason [5], but it seems the policy doesn't apply to them. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding you comment

[edit]

I am merely discussing on talk page here. Could you kindly elaborate why I am not allowed to discuss on talk page. IrbodneZ (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irbodnez, did you read through WP:ECREXPLAIN? It provides a very clear and thorough explanation. The short version is that until you hit 500 edits and 30 days of experience, you are not allowed to discuss Indian military history topics (as well as a few other designated contentious topics) anywhere on Wikipedia. The only, narrow, exception is that you are allowed to make constructive, uncontroversial edit requests, preferably well-formatted. As I’ve already explained on your talk page, this exception does not extend to advocating for or otherwise discussing the requests after they have been declined. signed, Rosguill talk 15:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missedthat entirely now I see. IrbodneZ (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisahn is edit warring

[edit]

Chrisahn is undoing every single edit i made after the consensus was reached. I think he's in mental breakdown or something. Please note, you are an admin. Gigman (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glebushko0703, I’m mostly away from my computer today and tomorrow and don’t think I will be able to do due diligence here. My recommendation is for everyone to wait for the closer to respond and presume that the challenge will be filed at AN, and we can hopefully get a clear result from that in a week or two. No need to rush to update the info boxes now before the dust settles. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is just undoing every single one of my edits at this very moment. One by one. Gigman (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Right Expired (Request for Extension)

[edit]

I apologize for reaching out to you directly my New Page Reviewer right expired on 7 December 2025 here is permalink. I reapplied on 30 November 2025 but have NOT yet received a response. am actively participating in the December AfC backlog and would like to continue without any gaps. Could you please advise if my reviewer right can be extended?. Thank you very much for your time and help.... CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 11:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thilio sorry for not responding sooner, I've been traveling recently. Congrats on receiving the full permission from HJ Mitchell signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill I know that if you were active, you would have replied... Thank you so much for the first trial you gave me, I really appreciate it. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick heads-up

[edit]

Hey Rosguill! I saw your note in Special:Diff/1326567095 and wanted to double check if you're sure about it? It seems... misplaced? Anyway, thought you'd appreciate a heads-up. stwalkerster (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stwalkerster, thanks for the heads up, I've moved the comment to the correct place. signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon SPA

[edit]

Not a new editor looking at their first edits adding scripts. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. I would consider myself involved both by virtue of the revert you thanked me for, and for having written a fair amount of the content at Jewish Indian theory (had the latter not been the case, I would likely have stayed out of it and retained ability to act as an admin here). signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you won’t be on a break, eh?

[edit]

Hi @Rosguill, hope you’re doing well. I would love to talk to you further about my situation. I think for now it will be best for me and my mental health to just be at peace from all the drama.

But yes, I have many questions to be answered. And looking forward on how we can work on this together. Cheers! (praying you’ll be available when I do) Rejoy2003(talk) 08:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoy2003, I'm able to answer questions, but you don't appear to have asked any of them yet. signed, Rosguill talk 16:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Milstein

[edit]

Hello, Thank you for your long service with editing Wikipedia for the common good. Please refrain from reverting my latest edit on the Adam Millstein before debating it, as we are not in agreement on what constitutes a strong enough source for a living persons bio. I don't want to get into a editing war by reverting your latest reversion so let's work it out. Magazine mentions of persons criminality is not enough, unless they have references we can follow up. BassiStone (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken about source strength, but you're welcome to raise this on the article's talk page. Before you do so, I recommend reviewing prior discussions that have touched on his convictions at Talk:Adam_Milstein/Archive_3#Nationality, Talk:Adam_Milstein/Archive_2#Tax_evasion, Talk:Adam_Milstein/Archive_2#SD, Talk:Adam_Milstein/Archive_1#Non-BLP_sourcing_for_serious_accusations. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth reviewing Milstein's own comments on the conviction: Milstein says he takes full accountability for his conviction, which originated when he voluntarily took responsibility for a past violation to help a friend. [6]. JNS itself is not the greatest source and wears its biases on its sleeve, so I'm not recommending we cite it directly, but it is relevant insofar as you are arguing that there is some sort of reputational risk or unfair skew to mentioning the conviction; the conviction is not a point of contention, at least as far as Milstein's spokespeople are concerned. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]