User talk:Rosguill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Casoto[edit]

Hi, can you protect the above article from repeated vandalism? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denisarona,  Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Denisarona (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption[edit]

Hi. Can you adopt me?--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14Jenna7Caesura, what sort of editing are you interested in and/or looking for help with? signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some tool that shows a pop-up of the edits of others? Some tool to make editing faster? --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I know of anything like what you're asking for for #1 and #2 is vague enough that a lot of different tools could help (or not, depending on what you're looking for). You'll probably find WP:Tools useful to look through. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thank you for reviewing all of those pages. Cheers! Surge_Elec (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar-RTFM.png The Reviewer Barnstar
Thank you for your hard work in reviewing NCNR UK, InteliDey and HPC4+ articles. IMLone wolf (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Request[edit]

Please, review this page. Thanks. - Owais Talk 13:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I generally don't do reviews on request. A new page reviewer will get to it in due time. signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comment request[edit]

Hello! Could you give your opinion for this AfD which seems to be stuck: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Family of Churches (2nd nomination)? Thanks. Veverve (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, at this point it seems headed to deletion, but I'm going to refrain from closing it or participating myself since it could potentially be read as canvassing. If more evidence for keep is found and it ends up getting another relist I'll investigate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. If you want, I have also opened this other AfD. Veverve (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Britain[edit]

This redirect was just changed to an article. You reverted a similar change in 2020, so I thought you might want to take a look. I also note that when you reverted, you overrode a 2017 RFD - I'm not sure if that was intentional. This may be a candidate for broader discussion. I removed the redirect hatnote at the old target, and added one to this article; if this new article stands as is, please review this hatnote. MB 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB At a glance, the new article seems to cover a distinct concept, unlike the revision I reverted as analogous to Imperial Federation. Reviewing GScholar results, it seems like the term may be notable in itself, although my impression is that the current revision insufficiently identifies Greater Britain as being a theory of discourse primarily developed by Duncan Bell, rather than simply analyzed by Bell (virtually all usage in this context that I was able to find cites Bell). Counterposed to Bell's perspective, there is the (neo-)fascist use of the term, which may perhaps be best separated from the topic. So, to restate all that in a less rambling way, it looks like we should have an article at Greater Britain, although I'm not convinced that the current framing does a proper job of presenting the degree and contexts of the term's usage. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll leave it to you add a tag, TP comment, or nothing else. MB 20:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your review[edit]

Hey Rosguill, this is Derivator2017 here, I think you know me. I am really thankful to you for reviewing my articles. It's always a pleasure to have your articles reviewed by an experienced editor. However, it apparently looks like not everyone loves seeing me on this platform. I have recently created an article, Yara International School and it was placed on AfD for the third time by the same editor under the pretext of notability, despite me providing around 70 references this time and out of which 3 to 4 sources clearly make the article eligible for existence. Since you've already reviewed dozens of my articles, I perhaps assume you see me as someone with AFG. Kindly review my article and place your opinion in the deletion discussion page, and if you think this article meets the GNG criteria, please vote to keep it. Warm regards. Derivator2017 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derivator2017, while I appreciate the compliment and recognize that you are likely well-intentioned, the above message could be interpreted as a WP:CANVASS attempt because it is a non-neutral invitation to participate in a discussion. Consequently, I'm going to have to decline to participate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think invitation is a thing which is rarely neutral, and that's why I asked you to only vote in my favor only if the "article meets the GNG criteria", according to you. Anyways, I appreciate your reply. Thanks. Derivator2017 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does review process works?[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and had a question.

A page I created recently got reviewed/patrolled and is located here: [1]

However, it still shows as unreviewed at the following link: [2]

When are the noindex tags removed for patrolled pages?

Thanks Wickedwiki2 (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wickedwiki2, looking at the page logs, it doesn't look like that page was ever reviewed. What makes you think it was? signed, Rosguill talk 14:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I had confirmation from another user with new page patrol rights at [3] Wickedwiki2 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As they noted in that exchange, BabbaQ is not a new page reviewer; the page will be reviewed and checked off in due time, usually around ~2-5 months. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Sj%C3%B6berg_Sidibe
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BabbaQ#Regarding_unpatrolled_status

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant reverts[edit]

[1][2]. This is not the first time. Look at their history, this person blatantly revert edits without a single piece of explanation on several articles.--2409:4073:2E9B:8C13:DEB:1400:D425:AAF7 (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the edits to the Splits and Mergers article go, I was able to fix them with a history merge. For the more recent reverting at Dileep that you appear to have been involved with, it looks like various other editors are involved, and there's also some odd copyvio in the mix: at this point if you think there's need for sanctions, I would bring this to WP:ANI, as simply from looking at the page history briefly it's not clear what action is needed. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good close[edit]

I've been closing more RfDs lately and have been kinda surprised that it's empirically the most thankless task I regularly do (colloquially and Special:Log/thanks-ly). And I've noticed that I almost never see anyone thanking admins or frequent non-admin closers on any user talkpages I watch, and when I do see it, it's usually "Thanks for saying I'm right".

So, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for this close. It went against how I'd !voted, but I agree with it, and it was the exact kind of succinct but nuanced close to a complex discussion that any closer aspires to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, thanks! There's some irony that by far the most-thanked thing, at least that I do, is reviewing redirects, the lowest-hanging fruit administrative there is, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/956349270[edit]

This was some time ago, but please note that in this case, you should have used the {{R to anchor}} tag. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil creature list subpages[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you closed a few RfDs at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#List of Resident Evil 1 creatures and below. There are a few subpages that should be G8 speedy-deleted: Talk:List of creatures in the Resident Evil series/Archive 1, Talk:List of creatures in the Resident Evil series/Impact, and Talk:List of creatures in the Resident Evil series/to do (search). I found nothing when searching for each of the other redirects, but double-checking wouldn't hurt if there's a tool. Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flatscan, thanks for the heads up, taken care of. signed, Rosguill talk 14:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND request.[edit]

Hi Rosguill, can I get a WP:REFUND of David Wood (Christian apologist). I remember seeing this article previously, and looking at the two previous AfD pages, I am keen to rescue this article if I can. It seems that the most recent AfD had very little participation, and I have doubts that it was thorough enough. Could you please recreate it as a draft for me? Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 08:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere, you can now find the draft at Draft:David Wood (Christian apologist) signed, Rosguill talk 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 18:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP[edit]

Hello I made a request to be a New Page reviewer over a week ago but had no response, I kindly ask you if you have time to review my request. Thanks Trains2050 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AE case closure[edit]

Dear Rosguill, many thanks for your input in this AE case. The case has been there for 3 weeks now, with two admins, including yourself, willing to impose topic ban. Would you be happy to close the case per that consensus? There is a risk it may get archived, without justice served. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armatura, I actually already rescued it from being archived early once yesterday; I left a note in the result section saying that I'd prefer to have someone else close it but am willing to act on it if this is still open after one more week. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for clarifying and for the de-archival, Rosguill: I noticed the case disappeared and then reappeared, and now only seen your message in the result section. No harm in waiting for another week, agreed, will wait. --Armatura (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption request[edit]

Hello Rosguill, would you like to adopt me? I started editing in late January. Since joining I have done recent changes patrolling, reverting vandalism. I have nominated one page at MfD successfully, and have made my first AfD nomination today. Other things I've done: made cca 25 speedy deletion nominations; two successful PROD nominations; requested revision deletion, a page protection, and have made filings at the usernames noticeboard; made two successful reports at the edit warring noticeboard, alerted administrators of a legal threat at ANI; helped the GAN of QAnon move along, for which I got a barnstar. Through recent changes, I've become a little more involved with specific pages, mostly doing copyediting, to the best of my ability. I have been expanding Template:Video game industry, and I created one stub (Max Planck Institute for Multidisciplinary Sciences).

So that's me thus far, in a nutshell. When looking at the Task Center I realize that I haven't even scratched the surface. However, I'm still mostly interested in recent changes patrolling, and want to stay focused on this for a decent period of time. Maybe I will only be doing some type of maintenance work on Wikipedia. I enjoy editing a lot. I've learned about New pages patrol in the meantime, and I see it as sort of a next step from that; it seems like a fairly advanced activity. What I'm interested in from being your adoptee is getting help to structure my activities on Wikipedia, so that I can gain relevant experience and knowledge in order to eventually become a new pages patroller.

You are the second editor I've asked to adopt me (previous request). I really hope that you will take me on. Sincerely, twsabin 22:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC) twsabin 17:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twsabin, thanks for your contributions so far. Normally I'd be happy to mentor an editor with a track record like yours, but I'm currently a bit too overwhelmed with off-wikipedia tasks to commit to taking you on. If you're still looking for a mentor in a month or two, things may be a bit easier for me. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! twsabin 20:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adoption[edit]

Hi. I would like to be adopted by an adopter. would you be willing to do so? I appreciate any help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, I'm afraid I'm a bit overwhelmed by off-wiki tasks right now and can't commit to taking on any students right now. signed, Rosguill talk 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded by user you just indeffed[edit]

Hey, the user you just indeffed (User:Carfian) was trying to edit an abusive image they had uploaded into the Emergencies Act article. The link to the image is [3]. I don't see how to request a deletion for it, perhaps you could assist? Or is that something that needs to be done at Commons? I've never had to report an abusive image before so I don't quite know the procedure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th, this is a Commons problem now, and as such is of my wheelhouse as well, I've only ever nominated Commons images for deletion when there's been copyright violation, which is a pretty straightforward process. To be honest, I'm not even sure this image violates any Commons rules, even though it obviously doesn't belong on enWiki. signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'll try to figure out where to report that on Commons. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps course completion![edit]

Hi Rosguill. The year of 2021 has been very drastic & troublesome. There was a lot of academic pressure on us during this year. It has been more than a year since I left my NPP classes at a "mid-way", provided my involvement on some admin-stuff on Urdu Wikipedia, and some administrative responsibilities at a user-group of which I was formerly a lead member. Now that I've myself started an approved user-group, DCW UG; I feel I should complete my NPP classes and become a graduate. That said, I'm graduating from my university in the coming August. What about NPP? Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AafiOnMobile, I'd be happy to help you complete the course, but I seem to have lost track of the link where you had been working. Do you happen to still have it? signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to find it at the top of the list of your subpages. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AafiOnMobile, so, looking at your school page, I actually think you've covered everything you need: the only modules left are on AfD and maintenance tags, which I think you're already pretty familiar with. Is there anything in particular you were hoping to practice? signed, Rosguill talk 00:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've learnt a plethora of things during the last year. What I'm looking for is to take the final set of questions and be formally called an "alumnus" or a "graduate" of the NPP school. This set of questions could help me know where I lack and thus likely adding more to my knowledge and skills. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AafiOnMobile, so while there is a final exam in the module, it's really just there as a way to formally fail students that aren't learning. I was going to suggest a practical test, but since you've been a new page reviewer and reviewed a dozen or so articles, I just went through them. I don't see any problems so far, and that's good enough to consider you a graduate in my book. signed, Rosguill talk 02:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Hi. Can I make a few minor fixes to Lazar Bicherakhov to make it qualify for DYK? It is a non-controversial article, and has only tangential relevance to Azerbaijan due to brief involvement of the person in the battle of Baku in 1918. Otherwise, it is more Russia than Azerbaijan related article. Grandmaster 15:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, Your DYK nomination for this article is open and there are several suggestions over there. If you address these issues, I'm sure this article will makes it way to DYK. The first issue is adequate sourcing, and the second is hook length. Have a look around and see if all the offline sources are independent & reliable, and support what is being claimed. Reviewers often assume good faith on offline sources but that needs to be adequate. I hope this helps! ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, the topic ban covers the paragraph about involvement in 1918 military campaigns, but if there's changes you want to make to other aspects of the article that would be fine. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. That part is sufficiently sourced, I believe. I will fix other parts that require references, and confirm the hook. Grandmaster 17:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Could you please clarify the issue raised here: [4] Thanks very much. Grandmaster 18:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Hi, this is a general question, I tried to find out what an AA2 topic ban meant and found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 impenetrable, but eventually concluded the key section was Amendments by motion. Is there a straightforward way to find the topic covered by discretionary sanctions? TSventon (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon, the topics covered are under the subsection "Standard discretionary sanctions", Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Hey - I think I was a bit short with you at SPI earlier on - I'm sorry for that, I have enormous regard for your work here. It has been a long day; sorry, I was being a bit of a dick in criticising you. Girth Summit (blether) 23:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, no worries! Thanks for handling the SPI case. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Egypt[edit]

That DRN case didn't last long, because the sockpuppet who filed it didn't last long. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, what confuses me is why they're willing to rush to DRN, but not make an argument on the talk page. They've been at this for months signed, Rosguill talk 09:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are trying to maximize disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, I feel like there are plenty of more interesting and effective ways to disrupt Wikipedia, the only thing they're maximizing is looking like a fool. signed, Rosguill talk 14:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPPSCHOOL[edit]

Dear Rosguill, I'm contacting you as I've been recommended to go through a training at WP:NPPSCHOOL by TheAafi and Celestina007. Recently, I've been blocked for 24 hours by Bbb23 for "disruptive editing" at NPX Capital (with my NPP rights) and also there had been an ANI discussion on my draftification behaviour. I would like you to provide me a training and a fair assessment on NPP. If you want me to surrender the NPP rights to undergo the training, then I would be very happy to oblige. -Hatchens (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Hatchens, I'm currently a bit overwhelmed by off-wiki stuff and can't commit to teaching you an NPP course at this time. Earliest things may clear up would be about a month, and that's just speculation. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rosguill for a quick revert. I can wait. Whenever you get free, please do consider about me as your mentee. -Hatchens (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For NPP rights[edit]

Hello Rosguill, I just want you to know that i had wrote a request for NPR rights here on 27 feb, please check.. If there is any problem in giving me the rights, then I would like to withdraw my request..... Thanks. — B203GTB (talk) • 09:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect patrolling[edit]

When a redirect is created as the result of a MOVE, the redirect itself needs to be patrolled (unless the MOVE was done by someone with AP). These redirects are de-facto valid, so can't their patrolling be automated? Unless there is an expectation that NPP reviewer should be checking if the MOVE itself was valid. I've never seen any discussion of that, and the checklist doesn't address it. I believe we generally rely on pagewatchers and other anti-vandalism mechanisms to catch bad page moves. I would say that these redirects are, in a practical sense, outside the scope of NPP and we should get the software to mark these patrolled when they are created, or have the bot do it. What do you think? MB 04:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, I'm not sure if there's a reliable way to pick up that a redirect is a move leftover, as a bad-faith editor could just add the {{R from move}} in the edit in which they create the redirect. DannyS712 may have more accurate insight. That having been said, I do occasionally come across redirects leftover from moves that need further work: sometimes there's a better new target, sometimes it's obvious housekeeping that meets G6 or G7, and sometimes it's something that should be hashed out at RfD. But the vast majority are typically fine. signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be possible to check based on log entries - if there is only 1 edit to the redirect, and it matches a log entry for a move, then its from a move. Let me know if I should investigate adding this to the bot DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having the wikimedia software do it as part of Move/Redirect creation would insure it the redirect was from a legitimate page move. MB 04:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User not following BRD[edit]

Hello Rosguill, there's issues with this user who deletes content and wont follow BRD despite numerous posts on their talk page [5]. They've requested page protection to maintain this. Can you step in here? Magherbin (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magherbin I've restored the status quo ante with respect to the changes that you contested and will be keeping an eye on further developments. N.b. that both the protection request and the action taken by Deepfriedokra are targeted at IPs/non-autoconfirmed editors, so that is tangential to the actual edit war underway at Medri Bahri between you and ZemenfesKidus. At this point, neither of you should be changing the content at-issue until talk page discussion is resolved. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I suppose i could increase to full protection. Or partial block these two . . . . Wasn't aware they were a problem. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was looking at past problems. I'd be happy to fully protect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now @Magherbin: and @ZemenfesKidus: can discuss, seek DR, mediation, RfC, etc. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, not sure the edit warring is entrenched enough for full protection to be needed, at this point with me (and possibly you) keeping an eye on the page it should be straightforward to deal with further edit warring. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I won't be watching. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ill attempt to discuss with the user, i've started a talk page discussion. Magherbin (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne II d'Albret[edit]

Hello. I would like you to help me because I have created the page Jeanne II d'Albret and I notice that there is a redirection from "Jeanne II d'Albret" to "Arthur III of Brittany". I think this redirection should be removed. Thank you. Bonjour. Je souhaiterais que vous m'aidiez parce que j'ai créé la page "Jeanne II d'Albret" et je m'aperçois qu'il existe une redirection de "Jeanne II d'Albret" vers "Arthur III of Brittany". Je pense qu'il faudrait supprimer cette redirection. Merci. --Parsedan (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry. I just noticed that while I was writing to you, another contributor whitewashed my article and redirected to Arthur III of Brittany. Thanks anyway. --Parsedan (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill&oldid=1075966053"