User talk:Robertsky

Question from Lisamdublin (17:07, 1 January 2024)

Hi Robert, my client wants to change her picture on wikipedia. What is the best way to do this? --Lisamdublin (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lisamdublin:

1. While you are editing on English Wikipedia, do take note of conflict of interest policy, especially on paid editing and disclosing one's COI.
2. As for the new image, if she holds the copyright to the image she intends to change to, it is best to have it uploaded to Commons Wikimedia, our sister project for hosting copyright-free images. In doing so, you will have to declare that the photo is to be released to an appropriate Creative Commons license. To ensure that the photo will not be deleted, you can confirm permission by using the email template to send it via VRT. It is best that after the upload to Commons is done and verified, you then switch the photo in the article. Note that if the image is found to be unacceptable for the article, the edit may be reverted. It may be better to add {{edit COI}} in a new thread/topic on the article's talk page to alert passing editors on the pending change you would like to make.
3. Type of photo for BLPs (assuming is it a biography article): clear portrait shot of the face is sufficient. See also WP:BLPIMAGE.

– robertsky (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lisamdublin I see that you have uploaded an image to commons. Do follow up with sending the email template to VRT. Also I suggest uploading a higher resolution image for Gale Rigobert. – robertsky (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for your help. I'm looking into this now. Lisa Lisamdublin (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A baton for you

	The admin baton
	From the last admin of 2023 to the first for 2024. Cheers and happy new year! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, thank you~ to be honest, I wanted to be the last, but was sick enough not being able to follow through on the 24 December start date. being the first for the year is also nice as well. – robertsky (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer thank you~ – robertsky (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I also would like to congratulate you on your successful, unopposed RfA! ~ Tails Wx 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx Thank you! Hope you will try again in the future. :) – robertsky (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I will, but it'll require a lot more experience and time to gain 'em. But thanks for the encouragement. :) ~ Tails Wx 19:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

	Congrats on your RfA!
	Congrats on your successful, unopposed RfA! Wikipedia sure needs more admins. :) Prodraxis (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Prodraxis, thank you~ – robertsky (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Big Congrats on becoming an administrator! Your supporter follow-up was a class act, there's a reason for that 100% ;) Good luck going forward. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood Thank you for the kind words. I hope not to disappoint the 100% support. – robertsky (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Honestly, I don't see how that's possible. Have fun! Regards. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Welcome to the mop corps. Wield it wisely! Zsinj^Talk 00:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zsinj thank you. Sure do. Reading up on all the admin guides now. – robertsky (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding my congratulations. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Donner60, thank you~ – robertsky (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear robertsky, I really happy to see you,with an admin rights on enwiki I really like your contributions, Oh!ooo..That's great news!🥳~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 08:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7 thank you~ – robertsky (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Congratulations on becoming an admin!! Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wikieditor019, thank you~ – robertsky (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

Dear Robertsky, I monitoring Talk:Ayodhya Junction railway station page after Requested for move started (27 December 2023), I think they need to closed because more than 7 days have passed?😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7 🌊🌊🌊 so are many others, see WP:RMC#Backlog and WP:RMC#Elapsed listings. 😂😂😂 interested closers will come along and have them closed or acted on in due time. – robertsky (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Robertsky, Thank you for reply.🤣400 users with PM userright on here, I hope they will close this discussion on in due time.😊.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hi @Robertsky, first of all, congratulations on becoming an administrator!!

The user who made comments against me still hasn't stuck out their offensive comments, could you please initiate action on this issue? - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Aggressive attacks for starting a discussion on an article's talk page | Removal of template Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thewikizoomer see the ANI thread. – robertsky (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

And thank you~ – robertsky (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"He who does not keep peace shall lose his hand."

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD thank you for the wisdom. As one who threaded the waters before me, do let me know how I do and if there have been missteps in my executions. I do appreciate the feedback. I am also looking at previous actions to see what're the norms at the various boards. – robertsky (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit boldly. The community has invested trust in you. They're expecting you to do the right thing. Just be yourself. And honor that trust. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @BusterD – robertsky (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Robertsky!

Happy New Year!

Robertsky,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

 — Amakuru (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru happy new year to you too! thanks for having me around~ – robertsky (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Happy New Year, Robertsky! May this new year bring happiness and prosperity into your life. With the lights of the true path, Amen.

Once again, thanks for your kind intervention on my talk page.

Maliner (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maliner happy new year to you as well. My words were just made in passing, do reply to them cordially still. :) – robertsky (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations !!

Hi Robertsky,
Lots of love from Nepal and congratulations on becoming an administrator with record breaking 100% support votes!!! I hope you will do your best as an administrator and make Wikipedia a safe place for all the users. Cheers and happy editing. WikiEditorNepali (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEditorNepali thank you for the kind words. Happy to be of service. Happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Requested_move_23_December_2023

Regarding your close of this, I was wondering if you were able to identify a consensus for any of the sub-options, in order to avoid wasting that extensive discussion and simplify subsequent discussions?

In particular, I'm seeing a consensus to continue using "Israel-Hamas war" (although no consensus on whether or how to disambiguate it) given the level of support and that the argument’s for that title are at least as strong as the argument’s against it,

35 editors only supported options of that form, and four supported it alongside other forms. In comparison, just 16 supported a form that didn’t include "Israel-Hamas war" and that included editors voting for titles that are impossible to find support in policy for, such as "Gaza genocide".

That gives us a support level of somewhere between 64% and 71% support; more than sufficient to establish a consensus, in my view, absent sufficiently strong arguments that I don’t think exist here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal looking into this again today. Will update when I have a response. – robertsky (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, no rush. BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I will take you up on the 'no rush' part. Resolving an issue on my NAS at the moment. >.< – robertsky (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope you've managed to resolve you NAS issue! I was wondering if you have had a chance to look at this yet? BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Reinstalled TrusNAS OS (it was bonked during an update), and now waiting for a PCI to host 2 additional NVMe disks for TrueCharts.

Rewriting my initial closing statement at the moment, and possibly may also close the whole discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Progress, at least!

And thank you BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Review request

Dear Robertsky, can you review please my created article Hemant Meena?. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7 Looks like it has been reviewed. With the current backlog drive ongoing, many of the pending articles are been worked on at a faster rate. – robertsky (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm late, but I just realized something: congrats on the first unanimous RfA since December 2022! ^Queenof_Hearts 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts Thank you~ It's not too late. :) – robertsky (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-02

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• mediawiki2latex is a tool that converts wiki content into the formats of LaTeX, PDF, ODT, and EPUB. The code now runs many times faster due to recent improvements. There is also an optional Docker container you can install on your local machine.
• The way that Random pages are selected has been updated. This will slowly reduce the problem of some pages having a lower chance of appearing. [1]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 January. It will be on all wikis from 11 January (calendar). [2][3]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 01:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Rofhiwa Marvin Marubini (12:32, 9 January 2024)

Hello --Rofhiwa Marvin Marubini (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rofhiwa Marvin Marubini Hi? – robertsky (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Strawberryweisscream (21:46, 9 January 2024)

How do I create a chart? --Strawberryweisscream (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war

Hi Robertsky, congratulations on your courage in closing the discussion on Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. I admit I find your change of mind surprising. As I see it, there was an evident lack of editors' consensus – no name variant has secured the support of even a simple majority of participating editors, not even mentioning consensus. That's why a new discussion was started below where options were revisited and are being further worked on. There was no need to formally close the preceding section – its lack of consensus necessitated the creation of new discussion.

So, you got it right at start IMO! I don't know why you then got swayed by an editor who, on top of everything, has been actively pushing the Israeli narrative in that discussion (i.e., one that Israel only attacks militant groups in Gaza) – a narrative not supported by the majority of participating editors (as I counted, option B received only around 35% of !votes).

I wonder whether you'd be willing to reconsider and either reopen the section or leave as you saw it originally, as no consensus which then required further discussion. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, my re-close was after relooking at the discussion again, not just looking at his statements here on my talk page. No doubt BilledMammal has an agenda, so do everyone else. I don't have my notes at the moment as they are on another computer, and this is coming from my recollection. When I relooked at the discussion, I first grouped those who supported to remain at I-H v. I-G regardless of the placement of the year as the discussion was mainly between these two. The supporting argument was between common name and npov, of which I found common name a more substantiative argument, which is what I-H was supported on. Looking at the discussion it was ~3:2 in favour of I-H, regardless of variations. Now considering the variations among I-H, there was no consensus as to call this war "I-H war" as the common name, and it was roughly 2:3 I-H vs I-H with year placement. There are also some without a preference between either with or without the year placement.

The current discussion can continue regardless of my re-close, it has gone on for too long to halt it now. – robertsky (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer that the close be undone altogether and leave it for another to close instead, if that's OK with you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I will leave the close as it is. – robertsky (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

R u sure? After all, you apparently got it completely wrong the first time and then responded to prodding from an editor with an obvious interest in the outcome, I really would prefer a different closer tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

One told me that I was right at the first time, and another told me that I was wrong. Which is which? I can't please everyone. Regardless who prodded me, if it was you, kashmiri or BilledMammal as well, I would have reclosed the same way upon reevaluation, one which I took way more time and care than I usually do. – robertsky (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to press the matter any further and I have also refrained from saying which close is "right". This is a contentious subject and the amount of time spent on a reevaluation should have been spent on the first close, should it not? Please do not close discussions in the topic area without proper consideration, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration for my future closes. – robertsky (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

On Sockstrike

I believe the sock-strikes aren't correct. This is after just looking through the ip's accused of being socks. Can you explain in details? 88.239.12.37 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The topic starter, User:Wiki.arfazhxss and the IP address were CU blocked after an investigation. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arfaz_Hossain/Archive#10_December_2023. While CU results aren't supposed to tie IP address to accounts, the blockng admin may take into account other evidences, such as behavioural evidence to to block IP addresses as sock. Since the blocking admin as indicated in the block log is a SPI clerk, I defer to their judgement. Even though the IP address has since been automatically unblocked, as far as I am concerned, the comments made before the investigations are considered as made by a sock. Do query the blocking admin if you think that the IP was not used by a sock master. – robertsky (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see the blocking admin to be Vanjagenije who blocked the IP 64.229.49.146. The ground for the block was that it was a suspected sock of the user Arfaz Hossain after a report by A.Musketeer (See [1]). Are you referring to this block, or the block of IP 45.248.151.129? Or 119.30.41.219? Because apparantly all of them are suspected socks and blocked currently, and all of them have reverted edits and sockstrikes. 88.239.12.37 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije your advice on this? – robertsky (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User @Wiki.arfazhxss is currently blocked for filing an SP under another username @Auvankar. The IP 64.229.49.146 is a suspected sock of the user, but CheckUser confirmed they were not socks (see [1]). The rest of the sockstriked IP's were clearly not the same user, based on their contributions. 88.239.12.37 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I also note that the block log of the IP has additional entries on 9 Jan since I last cleaned up the talk page on 8 Jan, which logs affirmed that the IP address was at least used for block evasion by the sock master. – robertsky (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That's what I am saying- they are suspected socks who were blocked only on grounds of reverting edits and also for contributing to the talk pages of aRape during the Bangladesh Liberation War- not for Sock-puppetry as it's been 'sock-striked'. The IP of 64.229.49.146 that have been blocked since the user Wiki.arfazhxss was blocked on 15th December was made on grounds of Block Evasion and Suspected Sock-puppetry but it was not a CheckUser block (I see [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector] who blocked Arfaz Hossain for their legitimate sock-puppetry and reverting edits but not 64.229.49.146, nor 45.248.151.129 or 119.30.41.219) but I can see their contributions to the talk pages have been sock-striked- all on suspected sock-puppetry.

IP 45.248.151.129 was blocked for suspected block-evasion by IP 119.30.41.219), and 64.229.49.146 for suspected block-evasion by Arfaz Hossain. The least you can do is strike them as Block Evasion Strike. 88.239.17.21 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)