User talk:Rusalkii

I think it would probably be a good idea to set pending chances on Elton John and McDonald's. Those two have a pretty high daily view count. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Some context on my recent lifting of very old protections. We don't protect just because of high page views: we want to see empirical evidence of high vandalism, and empirical evidence of high vandalism nearly 20 years ago doesn't mean that much today. While for some articles like Fuck there's no need to even attempt the experiment, a lot of very high page view or potentially very controversial articles aren't protected, because we want to balance the chance of vandalism with the chance of constructive edits from new users. I'm watching everything I've unprotected for the next month, so if regular vandalism resumes I'll reprotect. (McDonald's is an interesting case, actually, there's been several attempted vandal edits but all of them so far have been caught by the edit filter. Doesn't bode well for the stability of the article but I'll wait it out and see.)

I'm ambivalent between re-protecting as semi or with pending changes in these cases, so in the case of Burger King I just restored to the status quo. If you think it should be swapped to pending feel free to put in a request at WP:RFPP if you want a second pair of eyes on this. Rusalkii (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! So that explains why no reverts appear in the recent history of McDonald's. I agree that Wikipedia admins have an unfortunate tendency to over protect pages, even though I wouldn't have TRYUNPROT'd those two pages if I were in your shoes. What particular filter was triggered if you're OK with sharing that? Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was perhaps overly optimistic, but we'll see. If the experiment for this batch goes poorly I won't unprotect these kinds of high-visibility pages in the future.

3, 30, and 644; if you can see them on the filter page then I assume it's not private information. Rusalkii (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads up, one of the people caught by the filter is Diddy is in your walls. It's clear from their username what their intentions here are, and it's definitely not to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. I'm also pretty sure their username is a violation of one of our guidelines. Giovanni Potage (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Our friend of the dubious username has been blocked for hitting edit filters, and McDonald's unfortunately reprotected due to resumed vandalism. Mixed feelings about this given that one of the edits since protection was actually a very helpful edit by a user that now can't edit the article again (exactly the harm of indef protection on articles that don't necessarily need it), but several independent vandals in two days probably trump one helpful editor.

Elton John seems to be doing okay still.

You may also be interested in User:Rusalkii/Candidates for unprotection, I threw together a bot to collect some likely indef-protected articles instead of stabbing blindly at the main protection list. Rusalkii (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you comfortable with giving McDonald's another round? I think the disruptive was a little too recent to accurately predict if it would remain persistent enough to justify a full TA block. After all, the page was able to survive three days without issues (kudos to the edit filter), and there was – as you previously noted – one productive anon edit. Fully locking such a high-profile page because of a few bad apples after several days of silence scares away potential good faith contributors. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

On a side note, it would be great if you restored the old full move protection. As per WP:MOVEPROT, the page receives a great deal of traffic and is unlikely to ever be moved. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I've restored ex-confirmed move protection, full is probably overkill here but I can't imagine a constructive move by a non-ec editor. I am not thrilled about the idea of unprotecting it again but if you feel strongly about it we could try a pending changes trial. Rusalkii (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii Sure, I wouldn't mind lowering the edit protection to a temporary PCP (preferably with an expiration date of 1-3 months) for another WP:TRYUNPROT trial. I will watchlist the page and report to you when I think disruption becomes too cumbersome. Giovanni Potage (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. Rusalkii (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully, the edit filter does its job. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I know this may not be the time, but I have a pending request at WP:RFUP you might be interested in. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I have no strong opinion there. Rusalkii (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I requested it because I think it's unfair to leave a page extended-confirmed protected for years over a one-off attack by a sock vandal with a shelf life of a week. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manyu Sanghavi, their last confirmed sock was spotted shortly after Canada was ECP'd. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii, I'm unhappy to report that PCP isn't working. While things were quite at first, beginning from the 19th, the page has been hit with vandalism on a daily basis. There has been zero productive TA/non-autoconfirmed edits in the week since unprotection to even out the trolling. Giovanni Potage (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reprotecting! By its very nature as a globally recognizable iconic brand, McDonald's page here will always remain an attractive target for trolls. The fact that vandalism was still a problem even after a nearly 20-year-old protection was lifted perfectly demonstrates why indefinite protection exists. Giovanni Potage (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey Rusalkii. Quick question regarding editing. It seems as though I am on a short string in regards to editing as of right now which is understandable. I was told I need to seek help regarding sourcing, so if I wanted to make an edit do I need to get approval from you beforehand regarding the sourcing? and how would I go about that? --MoonknightPP34 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you don't need to get approval from me beforehand. My advice to review any feedback you've gotten about sourcing + the relevant guidelines, and then edit very carefully and check with me about any edit where you're not sure if the sourcing is appropriate or not. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the primary guidelines, but I'd say the very short version is that if you are adding any new information you should also be adding the source where you got that information, and in most cases the source should be independent (not affiliated with the subject) and professionally published (so a newspaper, book, academic journal, etc, not social media or some random website). Rusalkii (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Good day. I am DayakSibiriak temporarily unable to log in to the Wiki and create new pages. Please create a Category:Religious belief systems founded in the Soviet Union like Category:Religious belief systems founded in the United States or Category:New religious movements in the Soviet Union like Category:New religious movements in Russia. For the time being, I have placed articles such as Ivanovism into the category:Religious organizations based in the Soviet Union. However, not all articles about movements and teachings fit the definition of an "organisation." Once you create the new category, either you or I can update the categorization for several articles regarding Rodnover and other movements established during the late Soviet era. Many thanks in advance. ~2026-41516-21 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you might have me confused with someone else, I have no context on this and do not work in categories. Rusalkii (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Clear ~2026-41516-21 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I notice you have a User:Rusalkii/bookmarks.json page. Lately, the bookmarks tool has not been working for me. Has it been working for you? Please also see my comment at User talk:Sportzpikachu/bookmarks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You know, that would explain why I haven't seen them lately. Rusalkii (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: Tlynshe3's mentor Relativity is away.

Hi Rusalkii - I am in a bind, and I'm hoping you can help. I am submitting a page for a company that I work for (my conflict is identified as instructed by Wikipedia). The first draft was declined, but I then edited it to address the feedback from the editor. The second attempt was also declined and flagged for "speedy deletion" I'm truly unsure why it was tagged with such a strong flag. Can you help me address this and get the draft back on track? --Tlynshe3 (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the Lake America redirect, I know the RfD closed as "no consensus", but I still think Lake Ontario naming dispute is the obvious better target for now, until we can have another RfD. And if you look at the most recent few responses to the RfD, it seems like most people were agreeing with me. In my opinion, "no consensus" should mean "no consensus one way or the other", so there's no reason to enforce one target over the other if you don't have a reason to. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 04:51, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

"No consensus" means "there's no reason to prefer one target over the other, and therefore by default to avoid edit warring we go with the status quo", which was Lake Ontario. I agree that given that this was a new, contentious redirect the status quo was not necessarily as obvious a point to revert to as the status quo for something that's been sitting untouched for years like most things we see at RfD.

Frankly, personally I also agree that Lake Ontario naming dispute is the best target, but I do not think the consensus in the discussion bore it out. My choices were, I think, either close as no consensus or relist, and I think we'd get a cleaner consensus if, instead of relisting, I gave it a bit of time to cool down and then people opened a new discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Your recent edits puzzle me. Your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 26#Lake America was clearly "consensus against deletion, no consensus on target", yet you seem to be treating the result as "consensus to keep current target" in Special:Diff/1373477956 and Special:Diff/1373478140. I was not under the impression that you cannot modify the target of a redirect that has been through RfD without re-nominating it at RfD, and WP:NCRET states Although an outcome of no consensus usually means no change to the status quo, this can be nonsensical when there is broad consensus that some sort of change should occur. Because we are encouraged to seek alternatives to deletion, it may be appropriate to retarget a redirect in these circumstances, even absent explicit consensus for the retarget. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

See my response above. There was not a clear consensus that some change should occur. A large fraction of the participants in the discussion supported keeping the target as-is, and I did not find their arguments to be less policy-based than the redirects. Rusalkii (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The only policy based argument I'm seeing is the one from Jake01756. Is that what you're referring to? The plurality of "Keep" !voters seem to be saying "Keep" as in "Don't delete", not "Keep" as in "Keep it the way it is". –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 05:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, as is usual with RfD, most editors on all sides are not citing policy directly, which is why I said I did not find their arguments less policy-based than the redirect arguments.

Some of the "Keep" voters are clearly saying "Keep as in don't delete", but a large number of them are not, and for some it is unclear whether they are saying keep-as-in-don't-delete or keep-as-in-keep but in most cases the most natural reading is, imo, keep-as-in-keep. Rusalkii (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm considering RfDing it again. I think it's possible to have a fruitful discussion even with all these eyes on the topic. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 06:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I suggest WP:DRV, I expect another RfD to be closed procedurally. Rusalkii (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem with the last discussion was that a few people didn't actually know that Lake Ontario naming dispute existed (the discussion started before the article was created), and also the AfD that was going on was complicating things. The point of starting the discussion over would be to get everyone on the same page. I don't want to fight consensus; I want to find it. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 06:33, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that problem. I think the status quo has not yet settled and we may very well end up with something else significantly happening while that new RfD is running, which is why in my close I asked for a followup RfD to wait a month. The point of DRV isn't to fight consensus, it's to determine if my close was against consensus (which I, obviously, don't think, or I wouldn't have closed it that way). I don't intend to, myself, close any RfD you open even if you do so immediately, but I think there's a pretty good chance it will in fact be closed if you do not go to DRV first. Rusalkii (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Jeofe (talk) just retargeted it to the dispute article. The fact that three separate users have gone out of their way to contest the current "status quo" is reinforcing my belief that it isn't really the status quo, but I assume you're going to revert it back. If you do, I'll definitely post an RfD soon. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 20:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

RfD created. If it gets closed, I'm leaving this alone. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 01:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to basically go forum-shopping with your talkpage, but you just showed on top of the active admin list. Could you please take a look here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A little help? I did not plan for this to go sideways at all and really just want to quit wikipedia for the day... But I need to fix these first. Best, squawk7700 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Handled at AN. Rusalkii (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

...when I tried to change the photo on my author page here. I'm Cylin Busby (my user name is CylinBusbyRoss on here) and I thought I could update my own wiki page but I have a COI (it has been pointed out that you told me this two years ago but I didn't do it for some reason?).

I've just put in a request for another COI change (just a tiny update) and I guess I need someone to "clean up" my page so it's all legit (I think it is? everything seems to be linked to a source). Anyhow, can you help an old lady out? THANK YOU :) CylinBusbyRoss (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Copied over from User talk:Rusalkiii. Rusalkii (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@CylinBusbyRoss, I mostly don't answer COI edit requests these days. I've left a brief note to address the update you suggested, but I'm not going to do general cleanup on the page or check if it still should have the COI notice up top. Rusalkii (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Is there someone you can recommend for that COI notice at the top of the page? Or do I put through another edit request? CylinBusbyRoss (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

You can put in an edit request, though heads up that the edit request queue is (very very) backlogged these days, so it may be a while. You can increase the chances that it will be accepted by mentioning in the request any parts you wrote that might be promotional or insufficiently sourced. Usually for things like awards we look for either independent coverage of the person receiving the award (so neither the award's own announcement nor anyone connected with you) or for the award to be prominent enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Rusalkii (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! CylinBusbyRoss (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Hiya, I noticed that Rusabot is adding redirects to Category:Miscellaneous redirects. See for example this edit. Per the template guidance, bots and automated processes should not be using the double pipe trick to tag redirects in this way. I only recently learned about this functionality so I may be missing something but wanted to call your attention to it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this is another instance of the bug described at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Template weirdness. The template is being used correctly, there's just a problem with the intersection of the R to project namespace template and an RfD tag. It just looks like a bot issue because while reviewing the bot edits I tagged a number of redirects for deletion. If it's particularly annoying I can try to remember to remove the XNR tag before nominating, though this bot task is done at least for now so I don't expect to necessarily nominate more going forward. Rusalkii (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. It doesn't really bother me. I mean, obviously, a fix would be ideal but I don't have any special reason to press for a fix. I figured you most likely were aware. If it's a fleeting issue while redirects are at RFD and folks who monitor the category are aware, then I guess it's OK. Thanks for highlighting the related thread! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)