User talk:Rosguill

Sinikka Sipilä

Hi Rosguill.

I added more citations from reliable, independent sources. For me it's very strange that you don't recognize one of the most well known institutions in the library world and the Finnish Library Association as reliable, but anyway. Thanks for your feedback to improve this article. Please take a look now and let me know if anything else is needed. Best --Hiperterminal (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hiperterminal, I appreciate your additional work but I'm not certain that the issues have been addressed. The problem isn't that the Finnish Library Association is unreliable per-se, but rather that it is not sufficiently independent of Sipilä. Ideally, we should be able to provide sources that are totally independent, such as newspaper articles, academic papers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I want to understand better your interpretation of independent. I don't know if you noticed back then that this article included a reference to UNESCO and even with that the article was deleted. What happened? And the American Library Association was included as well as reference. In your opinion, is the American Library Association and UNESCO not sufficiently independent of Sipilä? I am happy that the process is over and the article was approved, but I want to understand it because I want to include more librarians as Sipilä. Thank you for your feedback! Best, --Hiperterminal (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiperterminal, the issue is that coverage must be both independent and significant and secondary (per WP:GNG). The UNESCO source here has two issues. One is that it's a primary source document: it's not a report published by UNESCO about libraries (or Sinikka Sipilä), it's a brochure for a conference hosted by UNESCO. It also has almost nothing to say about Sipilä other than that she was there and a brief blurb about her organizational affiliations, which is not significant coverage. It's also not as independent as it could be, given that Sipilä was invited to speak at that conference.

Such a document might be useful to a professional academic researcher or journalist, but it's too incidental for our purposes. On Wikipedia, we can only summarize the information published in reliable, independent sources; anything else is original research. An example of coverage of that conference that would have been usable would have been if a reporter at a professional, reliable newspaper published a writeup of the conference and spent one or more paragraphs specifically talking about Sipilä's contribution. Alternatively, if UNESCO, outside the context of this conference, published a full-length report on libraries in Finland and included several paragraphs+ about Sipilä's work, and Sipilä is not listed as an author of the report, that would also count as significant, independent, secondary coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Mentorship for New Page Patrol

Hello Rosguill, Hope you are doing good"?

I will like to mentor under you for the New Page Patrol program and become a good review ass well. I will stick to your timezome and any convenient channel of communication.

Kolapoimam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kolapoimam. Looking at your edit overview on xtools, it seems that you haven't quite hit the recommended minimum edit count of 1,000 edits for NPP mentorship, so I'm going to decline mentorship at this time. If you're interested in engaging with the anti-vandalism side of Wikipedia, you can try signing up for counter-vandalism training at WP:CVUA. Alternatively, if you want to help out on a wide variety of articles and learn a lot more about Wikipedia in the process, I would try taking up the tasks listed at the community portal. I think that this is a much better method to learn your way around Wikipedia than just creating new articles, as it will put you in touch with a wide variety of different processes and subjects, as well as having more opportunities for collaboration with other editors and generally having lower stakes than article creation. Let me know if you have any other questions. As a final word of advice, new talk page sections are typically placed at the bottom of the page, not the top. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Great,thanks for your input. I really appreciate. Kolapoimam (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Audrey article

I spent 2 hours searching sources (which only point to the mother's YouTube channel and various other social media and some sources from the story) and you want to delete it?

1. These sources are not entirely bogus, these are the PARENTS social media, like the Doering family has a BUNCH of personal information spread-ed on the accounts and it's not really hard to find the information on the news articles either. So these aren't fake, these are real accounts, and hell, even the news that this footage and coverage are all from Jennifer Doering. So yes, the sources are true. 2. The birth date is true because the document was shown on the news footage and again, from Jennifer's family household.

Junkrak (talk) 02:28:35pm —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Junkrak It doesn't matter who the Facebook accounts belong to, they are not secondary sources and thus do not contribute to the subject's notability. While they can be used to support trivial details in the article (although even that is discouraged), they do not contribute toward establishing that we should include the article in Wikipedia. I would in particular suggest that you read through WP:BLP1E, the policy governing articles about people who are famous for a one-time event. Additionally, I would suggest that you make any arguments about keeping the article at the deletion discussion, so that other editors can see them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you happy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Sisters_Reunite Junkrak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Junkrak, I'm not sure I understand the point that you're trying to make here. But at a glance, that article is unlikely to meet WP:NEVENT. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some searching and found out there's a act in there's a act in Utah for identical twins. Does this count? DOES IT EVEN FUCKING COUNT? Sorry, I got pissed inside for a second. https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/ Junkrak (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Junkrak, I'm sorry but I do not understand your argument here. If you are interested in arguing further, I would suggest that you take it to the deletion discussion page, and I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines so that you can actually make valid arguments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of 2019 IPSC Rifle World Shoot

Too soon. Seriously? The world championship in question will be held in just eigth monts, and the article quoted the Swedish national public TV broadcaster.Sauer202 (talk)

Open Space (band)

Could you please chime in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Space_(band)? According to your understanding of the WP:GNG on the example of Talk:Obongjayar, the article meets it.

Have a nice day! Pr12402 7 June 2019

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame

Hi, I just saw that you reviewed the list I created List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame. Thanks for that.

However, it shows that it is a featured list, which it is not supposed to be.

Can you please contact the right people, and tell them to remove the symbol from it? Thanks. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Surge elec, what was the reason behind that bug? I saw it and remember being puzzled by it, but when I checked the talk page it seemed to have the correct (non-featured) label, so I kinda just shrugged and moved on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. The symbol was removed from the page. Surge_Elec (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for reviewing the list I created List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame. Cheers. Surge_Elec (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RFD closures

Hey Rosguill! Just a heads-up: When you close or relist the final listing on a WP:RFD daily subpage, could you please remove the transclusion of that daily subpage from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? (Unfortunately, RfD is probably one of the few ventures where such an action is not taken by a bot ... ironically, a bot creates and transcludes the pages, but doesn't remove the transclusions when they are no longer needed.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Steel1943, Noted, will do. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi rosguill hope you are enjoying holidays , can i request you to review a page its notable and passing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Memon KutianaWala, which page are you asking about? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This page was created by few person in last three years at that time no notable links were found so admin protected it , i asked two wikipedia admin about this issue one told me please wait if draft accepted protection will be remove , second admin fix the page and edit grammar mistakes. i hope you will check and review it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi

Thanks

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Memon KutianaWala, I actually don't do much work at AfC. I would note that it usually takes a few months for an article to be reviewed, and you only submitted it a few days ago. I also see that a few AfC reviewers have already edited it, so people have their eyes on the article. I'm going to decline reviewing this article right now, please be patient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You were right

I was reading your comment, and I was pretty confused at first. After all, I don't review permissions, and I basically was under the assumption that:

"For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). After two weeks, if a request does not have the individual consensus of 3 reviewers the request will be automatically closed."

This was how the process was. Requests would stay up for 2 weeks, even if it consisted purely of oppose votes. Your comment got me thinking, "am I just not interpreting the procedures correctly?" So I went back and re-read, confident in my understanding. Until...

"Alternatively an administrator may close a request as successful or unsuccessful at any time as part of standard individual administrative discretion for the granting of user rights."

Thank you for the information! I figured that my drawn-out revelation wouldn't be appropriate for including in the nomination, but here's this at least. Utopes (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Utopes has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Utopes, we are all continuously learning on this wonderful place called Wikipedia. Honestly, since having gotten admin rights earlier this week Wikipedia has become far more terrifying again because suddenly I have a new toolbox that I barely know how to use. It's like my first month of NPP all over again! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I just didn't fully read the instructions and used my incomplete knowledge to say that you were circumventing the system. If everything is resolved, then we're good. (And you don't always need to be using your admin actions if that was worrying you. You don't need to cut celery with a chainsaw, even if you have it lying in your garage). Utopes (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		Pour l’ensemble de votre travail sur Wikipédia. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated greetings

I took a bit of time off there while visiting relatives over Christmas - so, I'm too late you congratulate you on your RfA, and too late to wish you a merry Christmas... but I'm just in time to wish you a cheerful Hogmanay, and best wishes for the new year! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your Tag: PageTriage in Abigail Varela

Dear Rosguill, thank you for your concerns about "copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" in page Abigail Varela. May I ask -in all candor- why was it that despite observing the need to revise these aspects you did not go ahead to make the changes that you perceived necessary? Was it due to lack of time or to another motive? Your kind feedback on this question will be appreciated.Neuralia (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Neuralia, lack of time primarily: if I come across an article in the new pages queue with copyediting issues that would take more than a few seconds to correct, I'm generally going to tag it and move on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, would you be kind enough to spend the necessary seconds? Your constructive spirit will be appreciated. I found one spelling mistake with the word aluminum, which is taken care of. May I note the article is written in consistent Historical present style that perhaps you are not familiar with?Thank you Neuralia (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Neuralia, Historical present style is not a style that is encouraged in Wikipedia's manual of style. Moreover, the article's tone is quasi-promotional due to its use of rather flowery prose: it would be appropriate for an art catalog, but not so much for Wikipedia. There's also quite a few grammatical errors.

I'm going to respectfully decline making the corrections myself, as I avoid making significant copyediting improvements to articles that have issues with promotional tone because this can allow paid promotional editors to game the review system. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A useful admin's accessory for you!

. Wear it well, Narky Blert (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI

I can't reply to you directly in the ANI discussion because I don't have an account, but I'd like to respond to something you said there. You said, "If this was behavior that was being repeated over and over again despite it having been contested brought to that editors attention, then ANI would be appropriate."

Could you please look at the discussion in Onetwothreeip's user talk over the past four or five months, particularly here, here, here, and here? I'm one of about a dozen users who have been struggling to deal with this pattern of behavior, which seems to have escalated recently. Now that it's finally been brought to a noticeboard, I'd like to make sure it receives the proper attention there. 2600:1004:B16B:F542:458D:473F:2506:D12A (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these additional cases to my attention. While a few of the diffs don't seem directly relevant to this case, the examples of rash article splitting are relevant and deserve further consideration. I'll make further comments at ANI shortly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, although you've only mentioned two of the older cases. I think his split of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War was the most severe case, as it created several hundred reference errors, which was a mistake he'd been warned about less than a day earlier on the same article. (See the article's revision history, as well as this discussion on its talk page.)

Also, should the other editors who were involved in these earlier issues be notified of the ANI discussion? 2600:1004:B16B:F542:458D:473F:2506:D12A (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added mention of the American-led intervention case. I'm honestly not sure what our best practices regarding notifying other editors would be. There is an obligation to notify editors who are being discussed, but that doesn't extend to other editors peripherally involved in the issue. Given the number of editors involved across these discussions, I'm a bit concerned that notifying all of them will turn the discussion into a trainwreck, and thus I'm thinking that we might get a clearer consensus for or against a cban if only more impartial editors weigh in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, this IP editor appears to be the one which has been in some dispute with me on the Race and intelligence article, where they have been attempting to retain sources that make fringe claims about certain races having greater inherent intelligence than others. I think what has now happened is a severe overreaction to situations that arose from article splits which have been resolved relatively easily.

The IP editor for example raises that there were "several hundred reference errors", but this was only because an article used list defined references. I copied the references over into the split article, but many of those references weren't used in the split article. This resulted in errors appearing where references defined in the references section didn't actually appear in the article, and these were removed a fairly short time after the split was made. Of the references that actually did appear in the article, and for what the content actually relied on, there were no errors. It was purely redundant references that were the issue.

I have explained the other two instances, both fairly benign, at the noticeboard. Please feel free to ask me any further questions regarding these splits. The vast majority of splits I've made were completely uncontroversial, and I have always been willing to resolve the issues on talk pages whenever the splits that I have made are contested. I kindly ask that you withdraw your proposal. Many thanks, Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor who opened the complaint at ANI is now WP:CANVASSING other editors, including editors who have nothing to do with articles I have split. This shouldn't be acceptable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, insofar as the editors that SharabSalam has pinged have actually recently been involved in editing disputes where you split an article, it is actually pertinent to the discussion. However, if editor's are canvassed from unrelated, older disputes that you've been involved with, then it crosses the line. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some of the editors are from the latter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, all of them are from the related discussions that the IP linked about the splits. I don't know anyone of them and this is the first time I see them.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Demonstrably untrue. Of the five editors you listed, AndewNguyen is from Race and intelligence, JalenFolf is from Differential K theory, and BullRangifer is from Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. These are not articles I have sought to split, and the issues do not relate to those articles being split. Of the two editors you listed who are from articles that I have sought to split, one of them raised their concerns in September and were resolved in September. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, nope.They are all from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Page_size --SharabSalam (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. Those editors are only mentioned in that talk page by Corker1, who was copying and pasting those comments on other talk pages that I was participating in, and were never participants on discussion about that article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I've had an editor, Corker1, who has now commented at the ANI post, who was copying and pasting comments to talk pages that I was participating in, denigrating me and trying to mobilise editors against me. Wouldn't this behaviour justify a WP:BOOMERANG? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, at this point these types of concerns should be raised in the ANI discussion, not on my talk page, not the least because at this point closing the discussion or implementing sanctions is not solely in my hands. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor RfD comment

In this RfD close, you mention to RealFakeKim about being bold and making the redirect themselves. Chinazi is fully protected so RfD is quite necessary! Pedantism over... anyways have a nice day :) — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

MarkH21, my bad, I should have checked more carefully. Thanks for the note. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

NPP school

Do you have time to take on a student? I am relatively new to NPP and would appreciate a tour. I feel like I am not doing it in the most effective way or giving it the due diligence it deserves. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I likely can, yes. What kind of instruction were you hoping to receive, a structured lesson plan or just some coaching when you come across difficult or unfamiliar cases? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Structured, if you would please. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, ok, I'll set things up for you sometime later today. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:

• If you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).

• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI

• User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history

• User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)

• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title

• User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles

• User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, one additional question, what areas of NPP in particular do you think you need assistance with? The structured course as a whole includes basic introductions to GNG and other notability guidelines, but we could skip toward more difficult, practical cases if you think you don't need the full introduction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You can skip the basics. Assume I am pretty knowledgeable in our policies and guidelines. I want to work more on CSD criteria, tagging, and cleanup. Share your process, filter settings, as well as what to look for and what to ignore for now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

pt → en help needed

Hi, Rosguill,

Thanks for raising that issue at ENB. I noticed your user boxes, and wondered if you might be interested in lending a hand with some translations from pt-BR. We currently have a need with two draft articles: Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations and Draft:Operation Car Wash investigation phases. The former is about 75% done, and the latter probably about 20%. It "chunkifies" very nicely, and you could do isolated paragraphs without having to worry too much about what's going on in the rest of the article.

There's another possible project you might like: I've been building a glossary of terms as an aide to pt-BR → en translation, to help make translation of (Brazilian) Portuguese articles into English more consistent and accurate, not to mention faster and easier. Any assistance to the glossary could be leveraged across many articles, so that might be a more important project, than just translating the two articles. You can find the glossary here: Draft:OCW-G. I think it has hit critical mass and is close to being ready for release; I expect to place it as a subpage of WP:BRAZIL. If you want to contribute, feel free. If you have any suggestions or comments, please raise them on the Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'll take a look at this later tonight, but I should be able to pitch in some. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Rosguill, thanks for the help at Phase 10 of the OCW phases draft. You hit a tough translation situation with precatório; it took me a while to research and fully understand it, but I do, now. It required a new entry to the glossary, and an explanatory note added to your translation, because there's no way a simple literal translation or a short phrase would suffice. If you hit a translation problem, please add it directly to the body text, as the edit summary eventually gets lost in the scrolling. The {{clarify}} template is a good way to signal a translation issue or uncertainty in-line. Here's an example. If you code this:

On April 8, 2015, the Federal Justice Court of Paraná confiscated 163.5 million reals from Queiroz Galvão's company, a figure corresponding to {{clarify|text=the amount of money that had been borrowed on credit from |reason=Original: "crédito de precatórios da empreiteira crédito de precatórios da empreiteira junto ao estado de Alagoas" |post-text=(See discussion [[User talk:Rosguill#pt → en help needed|here)]] |date=December 2019}} the state of Alagoas.

it will render in-line, like this:

On April 8, 2015, the Federal Justice Court of Paraná confiscated 163.5 million reals from Quieroz Galvão's company, a figure corresponding to the amount of money that had been borrowed on credit from the state of Alagoas.

The |reason= param becomes a mouse-over tooltip (but cannot handle links) and the optional |post-text= param can handle discussion links, if needed.

As it happens, it was not an accurate translation, and I've updated it; although I had no idea if it was or wasn't when I started. After some research, I found out the actual meaning, added it to the glossary, and adjusted the text in Phase 10. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Not enough articles?

Hey Rosguill! I wanted to get back to you about Shreevatsa's declination. While I am not worried about the outcome in either direction, I'm confused about your explanation. My understanding is that whenever a user with autopatrolled creates an article, the "patrolled" value is set to true, when it is set to false for all other users. So to that point, because the user is trustworthy on the basis of their history of article creation, why would it be declined on the logic that "not enough articles created recently". I can't ignore that the article creation has stagnated for the user, but because they returned from their hiatus to create more redirects, there is a possibility that more could be created in the future. That is why I nominated that user for the permission; they were trustworthy in the past, and if they decide to create any more articles, I can say with confidence that they will be well written. Autopatrolled isn't removed from inactive users either, and I'm sure that there are x number of users with the permission who won't author another article again but keep the permission because of the chance that they do return. Anyway, I'm not going to challenge the decision in the WP:PERM threads because you are correct in the fact that this user probably won't create many more articles or redirects here, so there's no harm in NOT granting the right either. Utopes (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Utopes, you're right that there isn't harm in granting the right to a user who doesn't make many new articles. But the goal of the autopatrol permission is to reduce Wikipedia's backlogs. At the rate that they're crating content, the amount of work that it would take me or another admin to review enough of their articles to feel confident in conferring the right would take years to pay off. Time would be better spent reviewing the case of a more prolific editor, or not at PERM and instead in actually reviewing articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mawhiba moved to draftspace

Hi Rosguill, I'd like to know why has Mawhiba article been moved to draft and why do you think that I have a conflict of interest. I have already checked about its neutrality and added the required citations. So, please can you tell me more about this?

I disclose that I have not been paid or encouraged or asked to write an article about Mawhiba.

--Mustafa Al-Elq (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mustafa Al-Elq, the article is formatted like an advert, particularly with the Vision section that looks like it was pulled directly from the organization's website. It's generally encouraged for editors who are new on English Wikipedia to submit articles through the AfC process, especially in areas such as articles about nonprofits and companies where we get a lot of promotional submissions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, can you give me some concrete checklist that I can fix the article through it? Like, what are your instructions to make the article does not seem like an advertisement?--Mustafa Al-Elq (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mustafa Al-Elq:

1. Make sure that the article's sourcing meets WP:ORGCRITE, i.e. coverage of more than a sentence or two from 3+ reliable sources that are independent of the subject
2. Write the article in prose (as opposed to bullet points, which should be used sparingly), focusing on the history of the organization, which can include recent events but should focus on past achievements rather than ongoing programs. Similarly, partnerships with other organizations are rarely worth mentioning unless they are direct subsidiaries of each other or mentioned at great length in reliable sources. Accreditation details are generally not listed, although it may be appropriate to link to an actual accreditation database entry in an external links section at the bottom of the article
3. Any content about the organization's intentions, goals or values which is sourced to the organization itself should be attributed to that organization, and should be edited to be more neutral. Note that even when presented neutrally, such information may not be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tibet House USA

I saw mention of THUS on Teahouse. Out of curiosity I visited the page. I noted your reason for moving the article to draft. I have reviewed the draft and can find nothing in it that violates WP standards. The government of China might not like the article as it is an indirect critique, but the lede and body are factual representations of the mission statement. Is there something else that I missed. ThanksOldperson (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, see my response on that editor's talk page. I felt that there was enough non-neutral phrasing that the article should receive some neutrality copyediting before being accepted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 22:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

                                                 

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Rosguill,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with Kifli

This article is to be PotD on January 20, and the article is in rough shape. Normally we start from the lead, but the lead is just a list of the names for this item in different languages, and most of those names don't bring up much on a google search. I'm hoping to get some help from people who have mad language skills like yourself to see if we can develop a reasonable paragraph to use for the PotD blurb.

Congrats on passing your RfA, btw! I was watching yours and Newslinger's but was so crazy busy both onwiki and IRL that I didn't have time to do due diligence unless it looked like my !vote would make a difference. :) --valereee (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thanks for the congratulations. Unfortunately, it looks like my language skills may not be too useful here: my main overlap with the subject matter is German, but the deWiki article appears to have already been mined for the Origin section and googling Kipferl didn't turn much up in the way of RS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! I'm using a scattershot approach here, just reaching out to anyone I can think of! :) --valereee (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Whitelist Guideline

Just was looking at your addition to the Redirect guidelines. While what you write is no doubt 100% true for you and you're doing the overwhelming amount of work there I don't think it should be immortalized formally. We don't offer such "in practice" language at AUTOPATROL or other actual PERMS even though these in practice standards exist. One of the reasons being that when multiple sysops work their standards are bound to disagree. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, we currently don't offer any minimum criteria for RWHITELIST other than "good track record creating redirects", so I thought that some more concrete suggestions would be in order. Given your comments, maybe a solution would be to say something like "minimum criteria is generally over 100 redirects created with few-to-none deleted outside of housekeeping processes". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at NPR just because we probably shouldn't just be deciding this between the two of us :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Scottish Independence DRN

Yes. There isn't a dispute if all but one of the participants have been banned or indeffed. We don't need to give a forum to sockpuppets to quarrel. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Educare Georgia

Hello, Rosguill. I saw your advert template in Educare Georgia. I tried to improve the article and changed some things, which I thought were problematic. Can you please review it and tell me, if the article is any better now? What else could be done for further improvement? Thanks in advance!-SHOTHA ^[UT] 08:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

SHOTHA, Thanks for the improvements, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks a lot! ^^-SHOTHA ^[UT] 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BIM_Collaboration_Format

You added the citations needed banner to this article: BIM_Collaboration_Format I think it can be removed now, but as the main author I think someone else should vet this. Please take a look and remove the banner if appropriate. duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DuLithgow, done, thanks for the improvements, although I actually was not the editor who originally added that tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice 2

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Encourage new article creation

Hi, I missed your WT:R suggestion and dumped the consequences in WT:RFD#Encourage new article creation. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Y'know, I actually hadn't realized that we had directly contradictory information on that page. I'll look into whether either of those justifications was inserted without consensus, gather my thoughts, and eventually comment there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I definitely didn't consider what's new with ILLs since Wikidata exists, obviously missing ILLs kill the old keep rationale. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I saw your comment on administrators noticeboard. This user is even removing my dispute tags, here and here, what should I do? Beshogur (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You could try reading the WP:DT link Hunan201p showed you in the history section, or the most recent addition to the talk page at Ashina tribe. Hunan201p (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Hound. Are you talking to yourself? Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. Both of you should take a break and let other editors state their opinions on the article talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Userpage suggestion

In your bio, you say "there's a solid chance you're here because I reviewed a redirect you created and you're not sure why." But then you don't actually say why! I now see it's a normal part of Wikipedia housekeeping, but the NPP page takes a while to get to the point. Might be a good idea (and avoid more questions like this one) if you said a bit more here. ~ CZeke (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CZeke, thanks for the heads up. I used to have an explanation on there from when redirect reviewing was still new and sporadic. I removed the section after some time, but I guess I had never removed the prompt from the beginning of the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello, How are you doing! I checked your contributions to Wikipedia. It is very great job. I wish you success in the future. And I have a suggestion for you. How can I contact with you? Could you give me your email or write to me on gulyora9920@gmail.com Kind regards with many thanks, Gulyora Gulyora9920 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gulyora9920:, you should be able to contact me using an button on the left sidebar of this page that says "email this user". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

White Croatia RfC

Hello, Rosguill. I've resubmitted the Talk:White Croatia#RfC: Disputed additions as you didn't submit for closure. The outcome is self evident, but there a users who need it spelt out for them. Season's greetings! Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, is resubmitting it as an RfC the way to resolve it? I thought the general procedure was to just list it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, please bear with me. That, I believe, is the standard procedure (or it's not contrary to any 'policy' I've ever come across). There was a time that I would have submitted the original in the blink of an eye. I do have 43,538 edits to my name for a little bit more than being a pretty face. I've submitted for people who didn't bother them but, usually, if you're serious enough about an RfC to initiate it the first place, why should it be WP:COMPULSORY for someone else to do it on your behalf. I realise you must be busy, but the just don't bother starting. It's too late to change it now because Rose Red has already added a new RfC ID.

You'll have to forgive me my being so curt, but I'm feeling pissed off. Drag me to an AN/I for a lesson in civility. I've got level 4 mantle cell non-hodgkins lymphoma, permanent, severe xerostomia: no little bit of saliva as my parotoid glands were blown out by the third treatment when my neck literally developed lymph nodes like ball down my neck literally overnight. Our article doesn't explain that most of your taste buds are blown, food loses its taste... if only it just lost its taste. It's more of a reaction. Most foods make me feel nearly sick. Some foods have made me vomit (no I didn't need a Metoclopramide). Burning mouth syndrome isn't helped by pain killers. I hate meal time and have to force-feed myself. Neither is it fun waking up with both the palette of your mouth and your tongue turned into a sponge. You're told to sip on water all day, then end up getting up every half hour to piss so you don't even get time to fall asleep again. I'm not even going to go into the painful details of how I stop myself from drinking more than 2.7 litres a day. Best yet, I was told that the effects would start clearing up after about 2 or 3 weeks. I've had R-Chop, Autologous stem cell transplant, now I'm on R-ICE. None of them are fuzzy-wuzzy little remedies. They're exhausting and painful.

So you'll excuse me if I have chemo brain. Each treatment gave me 6 months of recovery, then a relapse. What do you reckon the odds are on this final 30% survival probability?

Apologies for the rant. It's been building up for so long that I was going to explode. You just happened to be the poor sod who's copping it from me because I put on my happy face, even with doctors and nurses. My oncologist and his side kicks refuse to acknowledge I've said anything when I've confronted them with the facts. They just ignore what I say and leave the room. Now that's honesty in the medical profession. Would you believe it? I've begged them to please speak honestly about it, but they simply won't. Ah, well, such is life, nine kids and no wife (husband/dog/cat/chimpanzee). Cheers for hearing out my bitching, even if you did tune out by the end of the first sentence. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, no worries, you are clearly going through some harrowing shit and it's ok to vent. As far as the RfC issue is concerned, however, I'm a bit confused. When you say that is the standard procedure, are you referring to relisting the RfC or to requesting closure at AN? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting closure at the AN using the previous RfC number. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, in that case, I'm tempted to just revert back to the expired RfC status and file a closure request to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. If you're not opposed I can go ahead and do it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I had a couple of unanticipated days in hospital, so I didn't bring my laptop, and forgot the charger for my iphone. ARRRGGGH! I'll never do that again.

If Rose Red is amenable to having the new RfC removed, go for it! I didn't think there'd be any more interested parties than already participated joining in, but you don't know what kind of meat and veg, socks, singlets, long-johns, trolls, lurkers and people who just like the idea of !voting (even though they don't know a jot about anything), etc. are hanging around. The sooner closed sensibly, the better. What's next on the agenda, are we going to be rewriting the article on Continental drift theory as if it were still being taught as standard geography? We have an overabundance of oddball articles as it stands. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for delaying but process but, as I thought, it's all pretty much wound up thanks to Armbrust closing off on the obvious and making sense of the entire ahistorical a-ethnographic (if it's not a word, call me Shakespeare and ring the world sanctioned English language dictionaries... pronto!)

Incidentally, I'm going to keep on gnoming as carefully as possible, but I'm signing out 'cos I'm really signing out fairly soon (as in terminal), so keep up your hard work. Wiki is a mad, NPOV project, yet it really is worth it because it keeps international intellectual debate in action, and that is empowerment worth passing on and mentoring. I've loved working on it, whether I agree or argue with someone. It was a great insight into how I worked as a paid researcher. Complete turn around in methodology... Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, thank you for the comment. I'd like to express my sincerest gratitude for your contributions to this project, and I am personally glad that I had the chance to collaborate with you here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Just checkin'

Wanted to make sure you are still chugging along with a despite all the new tasks you've taken on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, so far so good, although I'm rapidly realizing that helping out at ANI feels like herding a group of distraught middle schoolers 90% of the time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124

Hi- Last week you blocked Smith0124 for edit warring. Yesterday, he went on a revision rampage that is far beyond what is in the spirit of Wikipedia and in violation of his pledges when he was unblocked. One revision he did, of one of my edits, was reversed with the decree that "The content is not changing." He needs to be spoken to again and possibly blocked. Also, he's been found by checkuser to be a possible sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, Peterjack1. I wanted you to be aware of this. Thanks.108.21.182.146 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't take care of this at the moment. If you suspect sockpuppeting, you should open a case at WP:SPI. You may also want to reach out to 331dot, the admin who unblocked Smith0124. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did both of those things. Here's a link to the sockpuppet investigation that found Smith0124 to be a "possible" sock. I also reached out to 331dot around the same time I reached out to you. All I ask is that you monitor when you are able to. Regardless, thanks again and have a great day. 108.21.182.146 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Manual issue on Browser fingerprint article

Hello,

Thanks for your review on the Browser fingerprint article. I'm here because you add a manual issue to the article. I agree but I have difficulties to know exactly which part are problematics and how we can improve it. Even if I have read WP:NOTMANUAL. Can I ask you to give me some examples or advices ?

Thanks, Ergozat (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ergozat, "can be" phrases that describe a subject's usage, such as Identification can be used for various purposes are much more reminiscent of a guidebook or manual than a Wikipedia article, which should instead use the simple present tense (e.g. identification is used for various purposes), which is what prompted me to place the tag. That having been said, having read through the article again more carefully, I think that it has a wide array of issues with its grammar and tone that need to be addressed, and thus I've swapped the manual tag for a copyediting tag. I've also added an external links tag, as external links should only be included in an external links section at the bottom of the article, and should not be included in article text (see WP:EL for more information). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response and review. I will take all that in account and improve the article accordingly. Ergozat (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfD closure

Hi Rosguill, would you be willing to reconsider this RfD closure? There wasn't much participation, and Anon had a policy-based rationale for keeping (WP:RKEEP#7) so I don't see how there was consensus to delete. I'd prefer it be relisted so additional participants can weigh the pros and cons of Keep7 and Del10 in this case. Best, — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Anon linked me to the discussion above where it seems they withdrew their keep argument, so I can see how you found consensus there. Feel free to ignore this! — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Review Request

Hi, I noticed you recently tagged the article One Part Woman for copy edit issues. I've edited the page to fix what I could, and I was wondering if you could perhaps have a quick run through the page to point out any more work that needs to be done, and/or any particular sections that are not up to par. I hope to someday nominate this article as a GA, so any feedback/general comments would be extremely helpful. Thanks for your time! GinaJay (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

GinaJay, thanks for your edits. While there's a handful of questionable word choices and very minor errors left, I think that the article is currently in a state where the tag is no longer necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for recently reviewing seven of my redirects! I appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Audrey Page

Curious about the deleted page. Is this considered a one time story?Nationalnewsorg (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationalnewsorg "One time story" is not the phrasing I would use, but yes I think that this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Belated...

Felicitations on your RfA Sorry I was away at the time and did not have the opportunity to lend my support. No worries on your block btw. It was solid. Speaking of which, I am reminded that when I passed my (rather bloody) RfA, I had this naive idea that I was going to be the first admin to go through my fist six months w/o blocking anyone. I had no interest in the drama boards or ANI. My plan was to roam around CSD and just do the light cleanup work that needed doing. My ambition didn't even last 24 hrs. While cleaning up at CSD I stumbled on a CSD G10 nom that was a vulgar homophobic screed aimed at some poor non-entity which I promptly deleted. And then I realized I couldn't let the page creator get away with it and I would feel foolish asking another admin to handle it... so, yeah. I remember trying to figure out the block template and then spent like 5 minutes explaining in the box why I was indeffing the bleeping little troll. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, thanks for the congratulations and the reassurance. I didn't think that anyone was likely to object, but figured that dropping an indef on someone with no block history was probably worthy of review. Glad to have had that cleared up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you go along you are going to run into cases of obvious NOTHERE editing and sometimes indeffinite blocks are the only reasonable response. Most of those situations will be self evident and won't require a review. But you will never go wrong asking for a 2nd opinion. You may want to take a quick glance at WP:ZT which I wrote to help with similar type situations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, thanks, I'll give that a read _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong - China relations

Hi Rosguill, I see you have added a redirect to the new page on Hong Kong-China relations translated from a quality article on Zhwiki by Translation Studies MSc student at the University of Edinburgh as part of last semester's course programme. The student feels that as their article covers relations in general rather than just the conflict per se that there should be space for both articles. Having looked over both, I do think there is overlap so perhaps an article merge might be the best way forward? Let me know what you think as I would like, as much as possible, to preserve the translation effort that the student has put in here. Very best regards, Stinglehammer (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Stinglehammer, I think that both merging or having separate articles could be viable solutions. However, if the articles are to be kept separate, then care needs to be taken to make sure that they actually have different scopes and aren't just content forks. From looking at the drafts, I'm left with the impression that perhaps the best way forward would be to merge the articles, and then perform a split that avoids duplicating content (and that is properly wikilinked between the two articles) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

M. G. Manjunatha moved to draftspace

M. G. Manjunatha moved to draftspace https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:M._G._Manjunatha

Thank you Sir. I'll improve the references, as per requirement & submit for review as soon as possible. Thanks for guiding me to improve this article. Mallikarjunasj (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Good, simplified close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Balochi numerals

Hi Rosguill,

Good, simplified approach to your close and your interpretation of consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Balochi numerals. I'm just wondering if you might add to the final portion of your closing rationale statement where you write, "(...) with no prejudice toward editors renominating Hindko and Sindhi for further consideration," or making the suggested change(s) boldly themselves to save further discussion?

For clarity, I'm not looking to make any further changes myself, but I find editors often forget redirects can be redirected to plausible targets boldly, so this would be a small reassurance.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, good call. When I was writing out the closing statement I was primarily thinking of deletion as the desired change, but you're right that Uanfala also suggested the addition of content as an alternative solution. I'll make the suggested change. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, No problem. Yeah, for deletion, re-nomination would likely be best. Sounds good! Otherwise, great close...I contemplated awarding you the Closer's Barnstar, but don't want to overuse it. Doug Mehus T·C 17:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For responding when we needed an uninvolved admin to read an RFC before launching it. I appreciate the thoroughness of your responses, and your willingness to explain your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hirohiko Kakegawa

Since you're the one who speedied the last creation, and it has a lot of sources, can you please merge its history or something with Draft:Hirohiko Kakegawa which I've edited to show it passes WP:SINGER 2/10? ミラP 19:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I've restored Hirohiko Kakegawa. An actual history merge does not appear to be doable at this time, but you should be able to just add your new contributions to that article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It was that easy? Thank you. ミラP 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I've recently learned that most admin actions are almost too easy to execute. The only hard part is figuring out whether they're appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it was, since I discovered a notability claim that hadn't been brought up before. ミラP 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, oh yeah, this time around it wasn't a difficult case. I was more thinking about blocks, deletions, etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Handling New Pages from Blocked Users

Hi, I needed your advice on handling pages in the NPP where the users are marked Blocked. For example, the oldest page is Certain Expenses case where the creator - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davystole - is Blocked. Does this mean that these articles have to be summarily marked for deletion? The Certain Expenses case article is informative and might pass notability whereas another on the backlog, Ava_Kolker has been created by a sock-puppet, which can mean an undisclosed COI. Kindly help with understanding. Csgir (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Csgir, we can file for G5 if an article is created in violation of a block and no one else has made significant edits. In the case of Certain Expenses case, it looks like the editor was CU-blocked without any further elaboration, which means that that account was a sock of another blocked editor, and that this therefore is a violation of the block, so it can be G5 deleted. Ava Kolker on the other hand is not eligible, as several other editors appear to have contributed.

Also note that this is a can, not a must. If it is trivially obvious that an article's subject is notable and the article is not promotional, consider not filing for G5 (I'll often come across useful redirects created by block-evading editors, and will generally accept them). That having been said, don't waste time evaluating a difficult case if it's G5'able. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted Certain Expenses case. While it honestly looked fine as an article, it was created by a sock of Sarsaparilla, who is a long term abuser that has been WMF-banned. Thus, I don't think we can accept anything from them, even if it looks ok. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you so much for the clarification. Following suit. Csgir (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for Sheila Gunn Reid and Christopher Wilson (reporter)

(talk page stalker) Noticed the above related question from an editor, so am asking here

@Rosguill:

Regarding the above redirects, I put them to RfD, but then speedied them because they were created by the sockpuppet account of User:Charles lindberg, who had already been blocked at the time these redirects were created by the sock, User:VivaSlava. Glades12 de-tagged my CSD tagging, and I'm not normally one to delete everything of a sockpuppet or blocked user, but in this case, these were redirects that never should've been created as articles in the first place. There was no substantive edits to either, beyond a mere citation addition to a previous diff. Nevertheless, my understanding is that since they were created by the sockpuppet account and because they were also created after the master account was blocked in an SPI, we can delete these regardless of any prior editing history.

Can you clarify, and, if so, can I re-tag for CSD so we don't have to wait a week to delete this crud?

Note: I've previously posted this to User talk:DESiegel a couple hours ago, but he's probably busy, in a different timezone, or the like. So if you end up replying first, I will just tell him to disregard the above post.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 17:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, it seems like Glades12's objection here is that Kvng's dePROD conversion to a redirect comprises a significant edit, thus invalidating G5. I'm not sure I would have independently made this call myself, but I can see the logic behind it, and I think it's best to proceed with RfD at this time. In a sense, you could interpret Kvng's edit as essentially deleting the G5-able article and creating a new redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yeah, I agree along the same lines with you. I agree that a de-PROD isn't likely construed as a significant edit. Can you clarify, though, if we can ignore the significant edits part if the article/redirect was created by an already blocked account? It seems like the blocked account was blocked before the sockpuppet account (which created the redirects in question) was found out/confirmed. It seems like a really borderline case of a G5 then. No one would likely object to G5-ing this redirect, but there's not really a strong case for G5, either. Kind of a tough one. RfD is fine...I suspect it will close as delete anyway. Doug Mehus T·C 17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical you're laying out here. I don't think there's any case where we can ignore further significant edits, and created by an already blocked account is the only condition under which G5 applies other than violations of topic-bans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, I'm kind of confused now. User:Charles lindberg was the confirmed operator of multiple sockpuppet accounts. It was confirmed to be a sockpuppet operator and blocked before these two redirects were created by User:VivaSlava, which was later added to the SPI investigation in 2018. So, my thesis is that since the sockpuppeteer was already blocked, G5 can still apply even though the further sockpuppet account hadn't yet been discovered. Does that explanation make more sense? Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation, if you haven't clicked through yet, is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charles lindberg/Archive Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, still not sure we're on the same page, but my response is just that the specifics of the original sockmaster don't matter because Kvng's edit can be construed as a significant contribution by an editor in good standing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, fair enough. So, bottom line, being created by a sockpuppet account or by a sockpuppet account of an editor's account that was blocked before the redirect was created does not nullify the "significant" contribution test. The differing view is whether redirecting is a significant contribution. I tend to regard "significant" contributions as adding more than 50 words to an article, broadly speaking, but perhaps the policy isn't written that way. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to put forth a policy proposal to further clarify what "significant" contributions by good-faith editors are? If so, I'll work on something for this spring, when I have more time. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, Eh, I don't know that it's worth a proposal, my guess is that it would get shot down for being rule creep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, (sigh)...we don't want more rules, but at the same time, are annoyed by purposely vague rules, which only prompt further disagreements and varying interpretations from one case to another. Thanks for your replies, though! Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, FWIW, my reasoning for why that may be undesirable rule creep is that I'm not sure all conversions to redirect are created equal. Consider the following example:

1. User:Sock creates redirect A pointing to article B
2. User:Sock converts redirect A to an article
3. User:Sock gets blocked for being a sock

Now, if a good faith editor were to reinstate the redirect at A to point to B with an edit summary of restoring previous redirect, I think that can be clearly considered to not be significant. But if that editor were to point the redirect to a new, unrelated article C, that's pretty clearly a significant change. There's then a gray area between these cases if the editor points A to another article which is related to B, or where the editor points A back to B but gives an edit summary justifying the change independently of the blocked editor's contributions.

We could try to come up with a very specific set of rules based on the previous example, but I think it's cleaner just to leave it to people's discretion on the spot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay fair enough. I do see your point, and it's similar to why I'm in the "hold on a minute, don't delete all articles created by a sockpuppet if they meet our guidelines" camp. Having the imprecise wording allows the subsequently created redirect to delete by G5 (although, personally, I would prefer to treat that as a new redirect so possibly merits a new discussion and if it's an absolute nonsense redirect, then "patent nonsense" could be used, perhaps?). Nevertheless, I won't worry about it, and appreciate your clarification. Doug Mehus T·C 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I tend to view any change too large to be correctly described as a minor edit as being significant enough to block a G5 revert. But then I don't like G5, and rarely do any G5 deletions. indeed I would prefer to repeal G5 altogether, along with WP:BMB, and revert only harmful edits by sockpuppets, but it is pretty clear that there is not and is not likely to be consensus for that change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"Dy-no-mite!"

I thank you for your continued diligence in teaching me the ins and outs of NPP. A question... what is policy on such a redirect? While I understand the exclamation mark, are the quotation marks necessary? DannyS712 bot III marked it reviewed, but I was thinking a move to Dy-no-mite! might be more appropriate. We already have Dy-no-mite. Courtesy ping UnitedStatesian. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I think moving it to Dy-no-mite! is the way to go. While it's plausible someone may search for this with the quotation marks because it is a quote, Wikipedia's back end automatically removes quotation mark literals from search queries (try searching for "Good Times"). What's more, it seems that the drop down search results can't display titles bracketed by quotation marks, so moving it will both not inconvenience anyone and will render the search term more legible for people looking for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PhanChavez Request at DRN

Can you please take a look at the dispute request at DRN that was filed by PhanChavez about five days ago and do something with it, either open it or close it or something? No one has touched it, and I can't mess with it because I am a party to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification

Hi Rosguill, I just wanted to let you know that I or some other editor edit warred or something on the talk page of Ergo Sum in the congratulations section, and your congrats for deleted. Sorry if it was me! I should be able to make progress at NPPS sometime Monday afternoon. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 04:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, thanks for the heads up, it's not a big deal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Therapy

Hey Rosguill, thank you for your feedback about the sections and coi. I am thinking of creating an origins section to help separate the content as you suggested, but I am still new to this and am learning as I go. In terms of the coi, is there anything more I can do to substantiate neutrality? I have cited several unrelated and reliable sources to support the information. Would more citations help? Is it the wording that suggests a coi? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Hip-Hop Therapist (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Therapist, honestly, placing the COI tag was a knee jerk response based on your username. I gave the article another read and don't see any obvious neutrality or framing issues so I went ahead and removed the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I added a section as well, you were definitely right about it needing to be more organized. Thanks again Hip-Hop Therapist (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Abby Hornacek

I am at a loss to understand why Abby Hornacek does not qualify as being notable enough for WP. She's a Fox News analyst and reporter, and frequently appears on several Fox programs, typically alongside Carley Shimkus. Is being a regular TV news personality on a major cable TV network not enough? — Loadmaster (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Loadmaster, being a news personality is not enough, we need multiple examples of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. As written before I converted the article to a redirect, we had two examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage, and one example of secondary coverage in a source of dubious reliability (Earn the Necklace). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being a good sport. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous copyright issue with 'Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020'

Hi there. I'm hoping you can give me some advice regarding a recent copyright issue.

Recently the Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 page was deleted due to a copyright infringement.

It was supposedly copied from this site. However, the text in question appears to have been based on previous years' Wikipedia entries which predates the text on the blog. See 2018 and 2019 for examples.

Is this a fair deletion? It seems more likely that the Eurovision website copied the text from Wikipedia and forgot to attribute it.

Is there any way of getting this re-evaluated? (I have recently created a new version of the page, based on the 2019 version, with updates and some revisions, so I'm not asking for the old content to be reinstated.) Thank you for any advice you can give! DivingSpicy (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DivingSpicy, the dropped attribution does happen and is probably what happened here. I didn't do a super thorough check when reverting last time due to the lack of justification in an edit summary when the content was reinstated. Generally when this is the case the content is retrievable on request, but it sounds like it isn't needed in this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD help

I have nom'd Jamal Simmons for AfD. My first! Are you available to review my edits? Wanderer0 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wanderer0, Looks good. For future AfDs (and other XfDs), you can set them up more easily using WP:TWINKLE. If you get in the habit of creating lots of AfDs, you may also want to install User:Enterprisey/delsort. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you, I've been meaning to install 'delsort'. So that's how CAPTAIN RAJU (or is it CAPTAIN MEDUSA?) manages to easily add all the additional deletion sorting tags. Will that script add the tags both to the AfD discussion and to the appropriate deletion sorting list? (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, yes, if the script is working properly it will both perform the notification on the relevant list and the notice on the AfD. It's been a while since I set up this script, but I think if you have it installed it will also show up in Twinkle so you can apply listings while opening the AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yeah, Twinkle definitely has that functionality installed now by default, but only when creating an AfD. This will be useful so I can add deletion sorting tags post-AfD (sometimes I forget) and I always feel badly when the Captains, Shellwood, or Northamerica1000 have to come along and additional categories. Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Many thanks. (BTW. My dyslexic and myopic brainpan read WP:TWINKIES. I panicked… briefly… egad!) Wanderer0 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting you to be my mentor

Dear Rosguill, I was asked by Mgasparin to be as my mentor, I requested for AfC and was denied for not meeting minimum edit requirements, I would like to learn more about the things for AfC or AfD, I have been active on fighting vandalism until November of last month, resumed this year in January and started my fighting in vandalism, after few edits I saw an article which I felt should have not been approved for article of creation so I decided to apply for AfC and awaited for review, after a week I saw that my request was denied and check a message left by Mgasparin to my thread created when I requested for AfC, Mgasparin recommended you as one of the 3 mentors and starting from today I am going to resume my editing here on Wikipedia until Summer. Looking forward to hearing from you.Angus1986 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, I'd be happy to help out, but I'd like a bit more info on what exactly you're looking for. I've actually done very little work at AfC, and have spent most of my volunteering at WP:NPP, which is a similar process, albeit one that actually has a bit of a higher barrier to entry. If you'd like to train to be an NPP reviewer, I'd be happy to help (we desperately need more page reviewers!). Alternatively, if you just want some guidance around AfD, I can also do that. I could try to give a few pointers for AfC as well, but you'd probably be better off asking for help from an editor that already works in that area if that's what your heart's set on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, sure I would be happy to work on WP:NPP or anyone which needs a lot more volunteers, AfC was just to decrease the load of the existing reviewers for AfC, but if there are other parts of Wikipedia which need help I am more than happy to volunteer either it be AfC, AfD, WP:NPP, etc. hook me up with the one you are the best and able to mentor. Looking forward to working with you. Angus1986 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, ok, I'll set things up for you in a bit. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:

• f you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).
• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI

• User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history

• User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)

• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title

• User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles

• User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, your course page and the first few questions are set up here User:Rosguill/Angus1986 NPPSCHOOL. If you ever feel confused or need help, don't be afraid to ask. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, I would like to start with the school next week, I am not feeling well. Thank you for understanding. Angus1986 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, I am feeling better now and I am continuing it from today. :) Angus1986 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, great! Just in general, feel free to take the course at your own pace, no need to feel bad if you need to step back for a bit here and there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names. Italawar (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, I need your help. My edit here in history of India has been reverted for the fact that that article is “high-level”. But, my thought is, I am trying to improve a section of a high level article. It was nothing but good information I used from Indian National Congress article. Indian National Congress as you may know, is the most premiere organization of the Indian independence, however, it only got a footnote, so I added much needed material. Can you double-check for mistakes and put it back, if possible?

As mentioned, if you can double check and reinstate the section on the Indian National Congress. (2600:1001:B02F:47EE:DA:33FC:4E22:F244 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

The issue here is that History of India is an overview of all of India's history, and intentionally eschews detail in favor of more summary-style descriptions, combined with links to more specific articles. It seems like the content you're trying to add would be a good fit at Indian independence movement. If you really want to try to get your changes added to the History of India article, you should start a discussion on the talk page and try to gain a consensus for the addition (and it seems from the revert that other editors are willing to hear you out if you go through this process). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems like what you and Kautilya3 stated is correct. I should do more research in the next few months before taking it up in talk and be prepared. (2600:1001:B02F:47EE:DA:33FC:4E22:F244 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

References

GA nomination of "Roman people"

Hello! I saw you nominated the article Roman people, which I wrote entirely myself, for GA and while I'm pretty happy with how the article is right now (I feel it gets the core stuff across) and the goal, as with most articles, is eventually reaching GA-type quality, I don't think it's quite done yet.

I think the post-476 AD part of the article ("Later history in Western Europe", "Later history in the Eastern Mediterranean" and "As a modern identity") is as done as it'll ever be but the parts about Romans in the Republic and Empire and what being Roman actually means could use more work (they are significantly shorter than the "later history" part even though these periods are what most people today associate "Roman" with and some terms, such as provinciales and peregrini could be explored in more detail). Significantly, the article states that being Roman was to share in Rome's morals, values and ideas, but it doesn't go into detail as to what these morals, values and ideas were.

I'm mostly familiar with the post-476 history, which otherwise often sadly goes unexplored (and I wanted to bring it to light a bit more than usual), which is why the earlier history is a bit brushed over. I was just caught a bit off-guard with the nomination and wanted to clue you in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, thanks for letting me know. Feel free to remove the nomination if you think that the article isn't ready yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed it. I have no idea how much more work is needed on it (as I said, ancient Roman identity isn't something I researched a lot; just enough so that those sections would be moderately expansive) but hopefully that's something that could be added by someone knowledgeable in that area in the future. Still honored that it was nominated by someoene for GA so quickly! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship Amendment Act protests DRN

My problem with that request was that I couldn't figure out who the IP was. They said they'd discussed on the talk page, but certainly not with that IP address. I even asked on the talk page. No explanation forthcoming but another IP added a wall of text. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I didn't even get that far, Dey subrata failing to show up was enough for me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I just found it really weird. Doug Weller talk 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FORRED RfD close

@Rosguill:

While any experienced, uninvolved editor could've closed Wikipedia:FORRED, I was hoping it would be either you (or BDD) for the consideration you give in your determination of the consensus of the discussion, and the level and type(s) of consensus. So, Thank you for the great close. :-)

This seems to be one of those cases, it seems to me, where the shortcut was given little consideration when it was created because even Steel1943 noted that it stands for "FOR REDirect," which in and of itself implies a certain ambiguity. As Tavix and others, including myself, noted, WP:FORRED is a shortcut to an essay on the rationale for "keeping" redirects from foreign languages yet because "redirect" is abbreviated as "RED," it also implies it's a shortcut for RfD deletion criterion #10 for REDlinks. Interestingly, and perhaps paradoxically, keeping the redirects actually keeps the redirect links as bluelinks.

Nevertheless, as Tavix and others noted, deleting this long-used, albeit poorly thought out, redirect poses challenges in terms of the discussion archives, so it's best to keep it—warts and all. Anyway, there was a discussion between Narky Blert, Hog Farm, Shhhhnotsoloud, and myself, or four of the six participants, were all in agreement to both refrain from using WP:FORRED as the shortcut for foreign language redirects and instead use WP:RFFL or WP:RFOREIGN going forward and to removing it from the shortcut menu at the Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages essay, I was wondering if you would consider that sufficient consensus to removing it from that essay? Tavix did not explicitly endorse removing it from the essay, but wasn't opposed to it, either. Moreover, he has long since not endorsed that redirect as a redirect to the essay on foreign language redirects, so I suspect he wouldn't mind if it were removed. WP:FORRED can still be used, going forward, but by removing it from the essay, we would be saying, "preferably, use either of these two great shortcuts to reference this essay."

What do you think?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 00:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, honestly I overlooked that detail of the discussion. I'll go ahead an implement it now _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, No problem at all. Thanks for your prompt response! I think that will be a great outcome that satisfices everyone. Doug Mehus T·C 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WWPI-LD

This is a new station; it should have at least some notability (FCC filings, press releases, etc.). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, FCC filings and press releases are not examples of secondary coverage and thus don't count toward notability. Moreover, if just being a new station was enough to meet notability guidelines, then every station would be notable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My permissions

So I already have 500 edits to the main space. I would really like to work with someone to help me with patrols. And it seems like you are not working with anyone right now, so would it interest you in maybe helping me? So once I understand patrolling, and come back in a month, I should have more of a chance to have my rights changed? MacySinrich ^talk 01:15 4 February 2020 (UTC)

MacySinrich, I actually have three students right now, but one of them is about to graduate so I should still be able to help you. I'll set a page up for you in a bit. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:

• If you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).

• Wikipedia:Script Installer, which makes installing the rest of these scripts way easier

• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI

• User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history

• User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)

• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title

• User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles

• User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

MacySinrich, I've started a course page for you here. Feel free to take things at your own pace, and don't be afraid to ask questions if there's something you're not sure you understand. Wikipedia is large and complicated, and new page reviewing requires an essentially admin-level knowledge of policies relating to content creation and deletion. My general teaching philosophy is to let people keep trying until they get it right, so don't be discouraged if you don't pick stuff up right away. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Boleskine House Foundation

Hi Rosguill. I wanted to let you know about my concern with moving an article, Boleskine House Foundation into draft space because of a supposed conflict of interest. I can see the point of moving articles that are undersourced there, or moving articles that have no chance of surviving AfD in their current state. But this one has half a dozen newspaper sources, and is easily notable. Of course, every article should mainly be based on secondary sources, but I feel that the best way to fix that sort of defect is to expose it more editors' eyes, and unfortunately, moving into draft space does exactly the opposite. If there is indeed a CoI, then the original author, by definition, is the least able to edit the article neutrally, but one of the consequences of draft space is that it puts the onus back onto that original author to fix it. Not the most productive means of achieving the goal, if you don't mind me saying so.

Anyway, the draft has been republished and a couple of other editors have done some minor cleanup. It still needs the balance shifting toward more secondary sources and eventually it probably ought to be an article about the house, not the foundation, but that can't happen until it's rebuilt (if it ever is). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, the instructions at WP:DRAFTIFY say pretty clearly that COI is a valid reason to move to draft, and as an inexperienced editor, the initial editor should have been encouraged to submit articles through AfC to begin with. Moreover, when I came across that draft in the new pages feed, it had 10 citations to the subject for every single citation to a reputable newspaper. I think that this is actually an example of draftify working perfectly: the initial editor noted their COI, made improvements, asked for help which led to further improvements, and had an acceptable draft moved back to mainspace. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The instructions at DRAFTIFY are merely suggestions; they don't have have the consensus of WP:PAG. It's obvious that the idea of moving to draft because of a suspicion of CoI is insufficient (even DRAFTIFY states "when the author clearly has a conflict of interest". Do you disagree with the proposition that moving to draft space reduces the number of editors who are likely to see it? I should also note that DRAFTIFY has an expectation that the mover "should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors."

I'm afraid that it's an example of draftification working badly: an insufficient reason, moved without tagging for Wikiprojects; and only rescued because the author happened to know an experienced editor who edited it, published it and marked up the relevant Wikiprojects, which only then attracted other editors. Most of the improvements were made quite quickly after the article was returned to mainspace – a telling comment on the draftification process. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I'll concede that I should have tagged the page with project banners, that was a mistake. I nevertheless feel that it's unreasonable to expect new page reviewers to wade through nearly 100 references when the overwhelming majority of them are flatly unacceptable as sources. Some burden of demonstrating notability does need to fall on the article creator, both for the sake of new page reviewers and for the sake of all of the other articles whose reviews are delayed due to cleaning up messes like this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I most certainly agree that the work of NPP is arduous and of the greatest importance to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there aren't enough new page patrollers and that puts time pressure on those who volunteer for the thankless job. It took me a few minutes to spot the half-dozen independent secondary sources amongst the 93 citations in the version you moved, so you have my sympathy. Nevertheless, the core purpose of AfC is "to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted." Logically, it follows that there's no point in moving an article into draft space if it meets WP:GNG. Personally, I'd have slapped a {{Refimprove}} tag on the article, and marked up the talk page for WikiProject Scotland, along with a quick note on concerns about too many primary sources, but I can see that would be a disproportionate amount of time to spend on one article (which is why I was always so inefficient at NPP). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for the sympathy. IMO, the benefit of using a procedure like the one described at WP:DRAFTIFY is that it is a weeder for editors who are not here in good faith. An editor who wants to improve the encyclopedia will have plenty of recourse following a draftify, even if they don't personally know an experienced editor, they can contact the editor that performed the drafting, and they can seek help at the teahouse, or failing that, they can follow the instructions resubmit through AfC––if it's still declined at that point, they will receive further guidance on how to improve the draft. We put the burden of proof on contributing editors when they want to add information to an existing article, and I think it's appropriate to treat article creation in a similar manner. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I agree with those sentiments on AfC...I'd also say that even if something may not be notable, please don't (and this isn't directed at you; it's speaking to patrollers generally) immediately nominate it for deletion at MfD (after draftifying). In most cases, if not substantially all, I'm of the view it's best to let it sit in Draft: namespace, with the AfC tag at the top of the draft and wait out the G13 countdown clock. Even copyright violations, I'm reluctant to speedily delete those when we can apply {{copyvio}} and let the copyright violation volunteers suppress the earlier diffs and remove the offending content. (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to do some needed clerking at MfD?

@Rosguill:

Hope you're doing well...I know you typically spend a lot of your Wikipedia time with the New Pages Patrol (I may join the NPP this spring as I think I have sufficient knowledge with respect to most of our key policies, especially the important ones of notability, verifiability, and neutrality) and RfD, but there is a significant backlog of old business at MfD in needing of some clerking. Some can be closed by experienced editors (doesn't have to be an administrator); just needs someone that's non-involved. The problem is, most of the MfD regulars are involved in them. I've tried requesting closure on the third oldest business at the applicable noticeboard, to no avail. I'm contemplating doing an involved closure of that one as "resolved amicably between the MfD participants and the subject of the MfD" and then actioning the recommended actions as there is no real policy-based reason for deletion, but am concerned that the nom may decide to appeal it to DRV on WP:INVOLVED grounds. Do you think such an involved closure could survive DRV, or would you mind taking a look at that one?

I just see no reason for that editor's userpage to continue have to have an MfD nomination tag on his primary userpage any longer.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 18:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'll take a look in an hour or two when I get the chance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you. No rush. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Noctivagus

Hi, @Rosguill:, I will not dispute anything, if you change your opinion do yourself a new article. It´s not a problem for me but i will not dispende my time doing another article for free. . Cheers! ,--Grazina12 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Grazina12, I'm sorry you feel that way, but your opportunity to comment was while the AfD was still open. At this point, WP:DRV is the way to get the article reinstated. Adding your comments to a closed AfD actually only makes your case look worse, because it makes it seem as if your arguments were considered and ignored in the original closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was working and it never crossed my mind that my article could be questioned. all gothic rock lovers knows Noctivagus.--Grazina12 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Grazina12, well, if you can find enough sources to meet WP:GNG then you will have no trouble getting the article restored (I'd actually be willing to do it myself). But I and a few other editors really did try to search for sources, including reading through every other language wikipedia's article, and came up far short of meeting that standard. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble

@Rosguill:

I took the liberty of closing the two redirects at the above-captioned RfD as "retarget" and "keep" since there were no objections and there is consensus there to deleting the remaining ones, in case you wanted to action the rest as I see you're non-involved in that discussion.

I have checked off which ones are "done."

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, hm, in my UI it doesn't seem that the full 7 days have passed yet so I'm going to hold off for now. I'm also not sure that I agree that there's a clear consensus for keeping White marble. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Hrm, that's weird, it should be 7 days at 2 pm Pacific time because it was listed at 2 pm Pacific time on January 30, 2020. As for White marble, I noticed that, too, but it is explicitly mentioned in the target article, so there's a basis for keeping. I noted the nom even acknowledged more than one potential redirects may not need to be deleted. You can always change the White marble one if you want, or just wait until it shows 7 full days for you. Doug Mehus T·C 00:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Customs and Immigration" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Customs and Immigration. Since you had some involvement with the Customs and Immigration redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Prisencolin (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Customs and Immigration

• Customs and Immigration → International airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No action recommended, just looking for feedback about the redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Big Fun Crafty Show vandalism

@Rosguill:

I still had the above redirect on my watchlist from when I closed it, and was surprised to see you marking it was 'reviewed' again in the page curation log. At first, I actually wondered if this was a new redirect for a variant spelling, but it was the same one. It seems like it's had a lot of single-purpose account vandalism by multiple accounts, and blocking doesn't seem to be doing anything. I'd request long-term semi-protection at WP:RFPP, but they tend to be a conservative bunch there. So then I recalled SilkTork indefinitely semi-protecting the Looby Loo redirect when it was up for discussion at RfD.

I'm not necessarily a fan of indefinite protection, but I'm wondering if a long-term semi-protection (call it 9-12 months) would be helpful here? Since you were the most recent admin to review the redirect, I thought I'd reach out to you.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 13:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I opted for three months of semi-protection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, That sounds good. Hopefully that will direct their attention elsewhere. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

And by elsewhere, I mean away from Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 17:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Gavaccino

@Rosguill:

Thanks for the ping in your close; it was clear, despite my good-faith, solid, and, as you say, "spirited" arguments, it wasn't going to go in favour of retargeting. Nevertheless, when browsing Special:WhatLinksHere/Gavaccino, I noticed there was a piped link at coffee roasting. So that tells me, there might be something we missed here. Are you able to look in the previous revisions, and see if there's anything in there (i.e., as a former article) that would give us some context into why coffee roasting linked to gavaccino?

If so, I don't think it's necessary to change your close, since consensus can change at any time, including immediately, but I'm wondering if it might be useful to WP:REFUND and retarget it to an article that would have similar content coffee roasting is referring?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, from reading Coffee roasting, I can't piece together what exactly they were trying to get at. My money would be that the piped link itself was some sort of a typo or misnomer. The absence of mentions on the internet leaves us with a bit of a dead end, but of course if we ever find something conclusive it can be easily refunded.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble, specifically White marble

...Since you are the discussion closer of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble, can you explain why White marble was "kept"? Asking since from looking at that discussion, the most plausible closes for that redirect would have been "no consensus" or "delete". In other words, I'm trying to figure out how much consideration was given to my response to the discussion's sole "keep" comment for White marble. Also, per this diff on White marble ... were you even the one who "made" the decision regarding White marble? Asking since I've been seeing a rather problematic patten with the editor referenced in the aforementioned diff and their capabilities of assessing consensus in discussions overall... Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Comment Since it was me that marked the white marble redirect as "keep," to try and be proactive and simplify the close, I took the fact that your nomination statement mentioned that "some" can be kept to mean that you were not opposed to keeping more than one redirect. It can be deleted, but I do think it's a useful redirect, so since consensus can change at any time, I would probably recreate that redirect. Since we're not a bureaucracy, it seemed reasonable to "keep" that one even if there wasn't a specific consensus to keep it; likewise, there was no explicit consensus to delete it either. Doug Mehus T·C 22:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dmehus: "...but I do think it's a useful redirect..." So, what you are saying is that you violated WP:SUPERVOTE. Well, I'll have to wait for Rosguill's response on this before I consider taking this to WP:DRV since they were the one who closed the discussion as a whole. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) @Dmehus: Also, if a discussion for a page is closed to "keep", it can take a considerable amount of tome before new discussions regarding that page aren't by default closed to "speedy keep" stating that the new discussion happened too soon after the previous one. So no, WP:CCC does not help overcome what someone would consider an improper close for an WP:XFD discussion; that has to be done either by the closer changing their close, or the discussion going to WP:DRV if the closer chooses not to change their close after being engaged/requested to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  As I say, Rosguill may have an added rationale; I was just trying to be helpful in assisting; it wasn't a determination of consensus. In hindsight, it probably would've been better for me to leave that one alone. Nevertheless, deletion and recreation may be the best option here. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, I didn't make the decision to keep White marble, and the XfD closer plugin didn't even give me the option of changing that decision. Of course, I could have overridden it manually, and I agree with your assessment that it should have been delete or no consensus, but at the time I had been under the impression that since no one had challenged that partial close, people were in agreement with that decision.

At this point, I think that no consensus is the most fair assessment (especially if we were to assess Doug's supervote as a normal vote), and will change the close accordingly. Dmehus, I think you were acting in good faith, but I don't think that it helped. Even if we set aside the issue that it wasn't an accurate reading of the consensus, having a partial closure conducted by another editor generally doesn't make closing the discussion any easier even when it's reflecting a true consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Fair enough. The reason why I tried to help in that way was your reference in another RfD to having redirects batched into smaller, separate discussions, so non-admins can assist with the closures. I took this as a bold assist to try and help out where some could clearly be closed other than delete. Looking back, I erred on white marble, so should've left that alone. In future, I will ask before assisting with any closures so as to ensure that the deleting administrator ultimately views consensus in the same way for all the redirects when multiple outcomes within the RfD are possible. Doug Mehus T·C 23:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, IMO the helpful part about batching is pre-emptive, in that it makes the discussion more orderly by reducing the number of different sub-discussions in the same section. If the discussion has already been had, a partial close doesn't make it much easier. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, fair enough. I re-read the arguments again, and yes, "no consensus" for white marble since J947 rationalized deletion of all except that one. It was a pretty emphatic argument. Fram only expressed a desire toward retargeting one of the redirects and no opinion on the others. Narky's !vote was to "delete," but not clear on whether all or some. As well, Steel1943 made solid arguments in favour of keeping and deleting white marble. Thus, the only !vote was "delete" it was Narky's, and that's only if we assume that Narky meant "delete all." So, a no consensus on that one is absolutely correct. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting that all out Rosguill. I figured that wasn't you, but I wasn't sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• And since asked, to clarify the quotation, what I was saying was, it can be deleted but that its usefulness, explicit mention, and WP:CCC are reasons why it can be easily re-created. I wasn't saying that that was the reason why it was kept. Doug Mehus T·C 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Note, too, that I have seen similar rationales used in other XfDs (notably MfD and AfD) if an editor or two have asked for draftification or userification despite consensus being to delete, the closing administrator will close as draftify or userify since we're not a bureaucracy and making the requestor go to WP:REFUND would be such. Hope that clarifies. But I'm not opposed to deleting, either, so long as it can be recreated (XfDs are non-precedent setting afterall), but Rosguill may have a similar, or different, rationale for why it was kept. Doug Mehus T·C 23:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Nilüfer Yanya birth year

Sorry, I did not notice your revert of the specific birthday. I think I have patched it up and there are 3 sources now. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, no worries, I wasn't vigilant enough in that revert to begin with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DRN

Hi Rosguill, could you please explain your decision at DRN? I've got to say that I am deeply disappointed how this was handled. – Ocolon (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ocolon I see your post on the talk page with actual sources and will reverse my closure accordingly. I am skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation, but concede that I misappraised the discussion at the outset due to the insistent chorus that you had not provided any sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. – Ocolon (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Halo 7

At RfD, when there is no consensus between a retarget and delete, and no one supports the status quo, it's not helpful to close it with no action because then it's closed in favor of no one. I get that you left it open for someone else to tie together the loose ends, so I've done so. That being said, as someone who was strongly advocating for retargeting, it feels too "involved" of me to be the one to make the change, which is why I think the closer should be the one doing it. I think the confusion might have been where you stated "two different redirect proposals", but really there was one proposal, with different targets for Halo 7 and Halo 8: March of the Pigs and Downward Spiral, respectfully. On a more general note, even when I'm closing against two different retarget proposals, I'll usually pick one of them and explain why I felt that one is stronger, or even leave a !vote myself to make it easier for the next closer who comes around. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tavix, you're right, that was a sloppy close on my part. I'll keep the advice in mind. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I just reread what I wrote and now I feel it comes off as super nitpicky, so my apologies if that's the case. Thanks again for all you do at RfD! -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tavix, no worries! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported

@Rosguill:

You seem to have acquired a new "fan," to the extent we can call the editor that, in Not Rosguill, which I highly suspect is not an alias account of you given that (a) it's not listed on your userpage, (b) it was created today and its only contributions have been at RfD and AfD, and (c) Hog Farm also recently had an unwanted impersonator in Not Hog Farm. Thus, I've requested the user be warned and globally renamed at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 15:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, well that's a bit unsettling. Thanks for helping take care of this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, No problem. Yeah, it's bizarre that both you and Hog Farm, who are both RfD and AfD regulars, have been impersonation targets. Doug Mehus T·C 17:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of passing mention at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doug Mehus T·C 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Note: you are not the subject of this notice, but rather, you have been mentioned in a passing/tangential way in the notice regarding Not Rosguill, who appears to be impersonating you

Question about soft redirects as they relate to the redirect whitelist

@Rosguill:

Since you seem to be the primary maintainer and coordinator of the redirect whitelist pseudo-user right, I had a question regarding soft redirects to related Wikimedia projects, primarily Wiktionary and others as well. Where there exists an exact match to a term on Wiktionary and we don't already have an article for it on English Wikipedia, we can create a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Since Soft redirect#Deletion specifies that soft redirects are within the scope of RfD for the purposes of deletion handling, I'm wondering if DannyS712's DannyS712 bot III that is approved to handle the autopatrolling of whitelisted users' redirects also autopatrols soft redirects? Since the pages are still effectively redirects but not created as hardcoded redirects, I wondered if the bot also handles these type of redirects. I'm not sure how broadly or narrowly the bot's terms of reference were written, but I wonder on the feasibility of implementing such an autopatrol (suspect not much, given Danny's apparent coding skills) and whether the RfC that approved the redirect whitelist could be broadly construed as authorizing the whitelisting of soft redirects? What do you both think?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: It doesn't currently patrol them. There was a concern that redirects that the bot patrols that are then converted to articles would bypass normal patrolling. Normal redirects that are converted to articles are added back to the queue, but soft redirects are not, so this would create such a loophole. DannyS712 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, yeah, that makes sense, although I note much of the adopted proposal was modeled after the "autopatrolled" user right. Granted, though, there's not necessarily the same requirement with respect to experience to clean article creation, so I understand the loophole. It's probably not viable.

Separately, since you're such a long-time editor with autopatrolled rights, assuming they are valid soft redirects to exact matches on the related projects and not otherwise eligible for R2-R4 speedy deletion, are there any other concerns with Wiktionary soft redirects?

The reason I ask is because I seem them as a valuable way to promote under-participated Wikimedia projects since English Wikipedia gets substantially all of the web traffic. Doug Mehus T·C 19:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: ...I'm not autopatrolled :( - I'm not very familiar with wiktionary soft redirects, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, Oh, wow, that surprises me, but I guess not, since you tend to be a WikiGnome. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, DannyS712, actually, I'm not sure that soft redirects are even added to the new page queue at all...I can't remember ever having come across one, and I've been patrolling the back end of the redirect queue for several months now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Interesting. Since you're autopatrolled as an administrator, can I try creating a valid one, and you can see if it shows up in the curation log? Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, not sure what me being autopatrolled has to do with it, but we can try that out. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Well, as administrator, the thinking was that if they do go into the curation log(s), yours would be autopatrolled. That said, I see what you're saying; they would show up as "reviewed" automatically. Nevermind. Doug Mehus T·C 19:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, looks like it shows up as an "all others", but not as a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. What are the classifications? Is that how new article pages show up? Doug Mehus T·C 19:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, the categories are "Redirect (not RfD)", "Nominated for Deletion", and "All others", so yes soft redirects and articles are apparently in the same "all others" category. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Thanks, so I guess there's really nothing then to do for soft redirects, other than to check that the editor added it to the Category:Monitored short pages hidden category? Doug Mehus T·C 19:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, well, presumably they'll be reviewed alongside articles. It's usually pretty obvious whether they're acceptable or not, so I'm not too surprised that I never run into them when reviewing from the back of the queue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Very useful, thanks again. Doug Mehus T·C 19:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Wiktionary soft redirect I added was wikt:$DEITY. Doug Mehus T·C 19:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Jyoti Yadav (journalist)

Hi Rosguill, I am new to Wikipedia. I just noticed this draft page and I have added a reference to it from a third party website. The article is pending since 10 days, I suggest that it should be moved to mainspace and left for upcoming expansion to the creator of page. Regards: Uzma Aafi Shaikh (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

UzmaAafi, the article has already been submitted to the AfC process, which usually takes a few months. Please be patient while a reviewer gets around to assessing the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Soft redirects to Wiktionary I created

Hi Rosguill,

The soft redirects to Wiktionary I created have been nominated for deletion, but at MfD. I'm fine with having a discussion, but per WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion, the correct venue, I believe, is RfD. As a non-involved admin, would you mind clerking at MfD and procedurally closing as wrong venue or, since we're not a bureaucracy, procedurally transferring over to RfD?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

AfC vs. NPP

@Rosguill: Hello, I came across is AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z: The World of Dragon Ball Z watching one of the nomiation category pages. I figured asking my question was more appropriate here than the wider discussion. I actually find the AfD nomination sound, but I checked the history, and it looks like you nomiated it shortly after it was accepted through AfC. I just wanted to ask if it is common practice for NPP to... oversee the articles that come through AfC as well, or had you happened to know of the draft already and found it surprising that it was accepted? I was under the impression that going through AfC would mark a page reviewed, preventing it from showing up on the NPP feed. Is that incorrect? I have been curious about the two article creation avenues now, and now I wonder if things even need to go through AfC unless a drafter wants a review and feedback. It seems that going through AfC would just waste time if NPP feed still tags those articles. When I looked at the AfC WikiProject page, it looks like it is not unheard of to see AfD's come through those projects. I hope none of this sounds like I'm questioning you, AfC, or NPP; I'm really just curious how this works in theory. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've also asked similar questions when a history merge from a draftspace move performed by new page reviwers comes to AfD later as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Denbrough (2nd nomination), but nobody seemed to know the answer. 2pou (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

2pou, I'm not 100% sure I understand the question here, but any time a page is converted from article to redirect (or vice versa) it gets added back to the NPP queue, indexed by the date that the page was originally created. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

2pou, the permissions for AfC and NPP are separate. Articles accepted by AfC reviewers who are not also NPP reviewers still have to get checked off by NPP reviewers, and sometimes even editors with both permissions will intentionally avoid checking off an article accepted at AfC so that it gets a second pair of eyes on it. Because of this redundancy, we can also be a bit more permissive handing out AfC reviewer rights, since mistakes or abuse will be caught by the NPP reviewer that eventually looks at the article. That having been said, NPP reviewers are encouraged to be less strict with articles coming out of AfC, since at least one editor other than the article's creator has already signed off on it.

AfC as a process is intended for newer editors, as AfC reviewers are expected to provide more ongoing feedback, and the format also makes it easier for reviewers to request specific changes from editors. In NPP, on the other hand, there isn't really space for "revise and resubmit" type actions (and the closest thing we have to that, draftifying, literally adds the article to the AfC system), and substandard articles will be nominated for deletion.

There's been proposals in the past to try to merge the two processes, but they've failed to win a community consensus (in part because of the infrastructural headache of integrating the processes).

Luckily, one way in which the systems (mostly unintentionally) work together in a harmonious manner is that articles in the NPP queue are indexed based on their original creation date, not based on the date that they're added to the queue. Thus, articles that were accepted at AfC after a long waiting period will be among the oldest articles in the New Page Queue, and thus will usually be reviewed very quickly, so we generally avoid situations where an editor needs to wait 3+ months, and then another three months to get their article through the two processes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Good, thorough answer to an in-depth question. It's interesting the captioned article was accepted through AfC, but I'm not seeing the AfC talk page header on its talk page? I agree that it probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines, so we should merge/redirect it somewhere. Having said that, one other possibility would just be to have draftified it and let it wait out the WP:CSD#G13, maybe? The reason I sometimes like that approach for these sort of things is at least WP:REFUND can apply.

But yeah, it's an interesting question...AfC generally does a good job at reviewing articles, and so does NPP, but neither is perfect hence why, in either case, we have editors like me who patrol the categories looking for articles which probably don't meet WP:GNG. Most of my nominated articles have been found in this method. Doug Mehus T·C (talk page stalker) 03:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I don't remember if this was something that's actually in the NPP tutorial or just something I learned from more experienced editors, but having an article get G13'd is generally seen as the worst-case-scenario for draftification. If an article's going to be deleted, it should receive a proper hearing at AfD. Draftify is in theory supposed to be for cases where there's a very high chance of an editor putting in the work to improve the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying regarding when draftify is to be used. I have G13'ed a number of stale drafts when going through the stale drafts category, but I think a bot maybe does that so it doesn't need human intervention? I wonder if it would be worth, though, about maybe trying to tie in NPP and AfC through draftification...that is, if the editor contests the speedy deletion nomination or otherwise responds, then that shows a willingness to try and improve the article, so the speedy deletion can be withdrawn and the article draftified, and then it'll go through AfC, which adds another set of eyes? Or is that what you guys already do? The trouble is...the speedy deletion nominations for good-faith articles are so startling and it doesn't really set a nice tone for the creating editor to want to improve it. Anyway, these are just some general philosophical-type questions I had. Doug Mehus T·C 14:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, which speedy deletions are you thinking about when you say editor contests the speedy deletion. If it's G13, then the suggestion is moot because G13 only applies to draftspace. For other issues, AfD is usually a more appropriate next step, unless the editor specifically requests draftification. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No, wasn't meaning G13, but was thinking more along the lines of A7 or G11. Presumably, the New Pages Patrol process involves checking not only the sourcing within the article but through Google as well, right? If it seems like potential sources may exist and the article is not written in an obviously promotional manner consisting primarily of primary sources, then A7 and G11 would be declined, right? In other words, in such a scenario, would the preferred outcome be for the patroller to draftify, with an AfC template, or send it to AfD? Doug Mehus T·C 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, generally the appropriate thing to do is to proceed to AfD at that point. Honestly, draftify, even when used correctly, usually results in getting yelled at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, really? That's too bad...draftify really seems like a good-faith, rational outcome. Doug Mehus T·C 18:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill and Dmehus:Thank you both for your clear and quick responses! This definitely helps my understanding of the process and answers my questions. As to the second link I provided, I apologize for not really provided clear context to why I even included that link—more so since I forgot how long discussion was (should've used a diff). Really, I just added that to further illustrate that my inquiry was not specific to the original DBZ nomination I posted.  

Dmehus, I believe that the missing AfC banner you spoke of was regarding the Ben Hascom case, no? Again, I didn't give the proper context, but that wasn't an AfC case, but one that followed this path:

New Page (main space)→NPP→Prod→AfD→Redirect and Draft→(Updates made)→Move to Main space→History Merge (by a New Page Reviewer)→NPP (I think)→Redirect→Removed Redirect→NPP→AfD#2

And the bold parts are what I was not understanding. Based on Rosguill's initial answer, I believe that this was probably a similar case to having a AfC page not being marked as reviewed. Carrying out the history merge did not equal a page review. I assumed that AfC or a history merge would automatically satisfy a new page review, but based on your answers, this is not the case. Thanks again! Regards, 2pou (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

2pou, Regarding the missing banner, normally there's a header on the talk page of the article that says the article was submitted through and reviewed by AfC. Hope that clarifies? Doug Mehus T·C 18:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

2pou, History merges, if it involves updating the page creator and restoring deleted revisions, can only be done by an administrator, who may or may not be a member of NPP. I suspect if a history merge was required, the patrolling editor would reach out to an administrator to assist with that?

Thanks, though, for clarifying the process. That's good to know that if it's not unduly promotional per G11, it would be first PRODed and then go to AfD as necessary. Doug Mehus T·C 18:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

2pou, Doug is correct about history merges being an admin-only permission. While all administrators have new page reviewing as part of their permissions, most do not actively participate in page reviewing. History merging does not imply a review, and in a sense can be performed almost without even looking at the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Rosguill,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject banners

Is there a tool or some sort of resource for adding wikiproject banners? I've always just relied on what's built in to the AfC tool, but that is kind of useless if the page is already in the mainspace. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I use User:Evad37/rater. It's been a little glitchy the last few weeks because it got a UI update, but it's generally quite easy to use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernice Kentner

Hi Rosguill! I got a notification that you approved my redirect for Seasonal color analysis. It's actually connected to a larger article I wrote called Bernice Kentner. Would you be willing to review it? I asked my friend to review it but then we realized she doesn't have new page reviewer status (which is why she deleted her initial rating from the talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaskManager (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

TaskManager, done, the article looks to be in good shape. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! TaskManager (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Squirrly

Hi. Please take a look at Squirrly when you're free. Over 70 references but seems like UPE work. Csgir (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A very fine page for an editor with just 20 edits. Just an observation. Csgir (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Csgir, yeah that looks suspicious. I don't have time to look through the sources now, but I've gone ahead and placed a COI notice on the editor's talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I checked and removed about 23 sources from the page. Too many references. Csgir (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User Fwaff again

Hi Rosguill, Could you please have a look at recent edits by an infrequent editor account [2] that you previously warned for "making unconstructive edits?"[3]. I believe a sanction would be appropriate as they are doing similar again. An edit at Librem 5 has already been reverted, [4] but their removal of Comparison info at PinePhone has not yet been reverted[5] (but should be). This edit summary "STOP VANDALIZING" was inappropriate, [6] and this edit made the list LESS accurate.[7] In fact Pine Phone is currently showing "Braveheart" version as "sold out" on their site. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, I agree that the above diffs are concerning. However, these diffs alone aren't enough to justify blocking without first conducting a more thorough investigation, and I don't have time to do that myself right now. If you want this acted on, I'm afraid that ANI may be the best option. Failing that, you should warn the user, if for no other reason than that continuing problematic behavior after receiving high level warnings is a much more clearly block-worthy offense. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Small dick syndrome close

Hi Rosguill,

Others have pointed out to me that it is redundant to ping someone on their own talk page, so skipping the {{yo}} template this time.

Anyway, regarding the above close, I noticed you retargeted to human penis size, but consensus was unanimous in retargeting to Small Penis Syndrome as {{R from synonym}}. I assume this was an unintentional error on your part, likely attributed to copying and pasting the wrong target (human penis size was suggested by one editor in the RfD above it), but maybe you had a specific reason? I can retarget boldly, but feel that it would be better if you amended your close.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 15:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I think you may have misread that discussion. You suggested Human penis size, two other editors agreed, and a third voted delete. Small Penis Syndrome is itself a redirect to Human penis size, and thus is not a suitable target for a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Doh! You're right, I even acknowledged that. Oh my gosh, so sorry. Facepalm or  Self-trout Doug Mehus T·C 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirects to non-English albums and singles charts

I am pleased to finally see the back of all these at WP:RFD. It's mildly laborious work, but satisfying if it results in a good retarget. I disagree with your no-consensus closures, but see no point whatsoever in relitigating them; that's a trivial issue compared with improved redirects. I imagine we won't be seeing any more such nominations from Agenzmale anytime soon... Narky Blert (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, yeah, I'm glad to be done with them, and I'm sorry for essentially overruling a lot of your good faith contributions there. I felt that it would be inappropriate to delete on the basis of a single good-faith vote in a bad-faith discussion, but that it would be even less appropriate to relist discussions that were apparently started as a form of harassment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I, too, thought Rosguill's "no consensus" closes for these was the best outcome. In turn, that provided for Rosguill to easily retarget those that needed retargeting boldly. (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 00:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No consensus =/= overrule. The history is there should anyone choose to revisit those redirects. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder if it's worth renominating those that need deletion? Though, I suspect, it may be best to not bombard the creator with a flurry of Twinkle notifications, what do you think? Doug Mehus T·C 00:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, it may be best to manually renominate them manually, in a batch. Doug Mehus T·C 00:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Give it at least a month and possibly more. This is mere housekeeping. Narky Blert (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Me three. Yeah, we don't need to redo anything so soon. I might mark that RfD page in my bookmarks, and maybe raise it in a year's time or something, or not. Doug Mehus T·C 01:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Signifyd

Hi Rosguill,

Can you have a look at User talk:CatcherStorm#Signifyd when you get a chance? I'm not normally going to do any article page reviewing until I complete the NPP School, but when I was clicking through the redirects and pages to review, I came across Signifyd, which CatcherStorm tagged as A7. My understanding is A7 is a very low bar that has to be met; essentially, the company would have to have had no independent source coverage at all. I have my doubts that this company would pass AfD, and it may well not even survive a PROD, but just wanted to make sure that I was right to remove the A7 tag. I double-checked with Utopes as I did it, who concurred. CatcherStorm, in good-faith, retagged it as A7 and G11, so I've removed that as well. It may qualify for G11, but honestly, I have my doubts to that as well. It's somewhat promotional in terms of the scope of the article, but as it's written, it's no more promotional than many of our other articles for corporations.

If you get a chance and can just stop by to CatcherStorm's talk page and add any additional commentary as may be helpful, it'd be appreciated.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 05:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Page stalker comment. You may want to consider tagging a page for notability concerns when removing CSDs in the future. I've gone ahead and done this, as I agree that the notability of this company is questionable (at least in terms of the sources provided). Sulfurboy (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, Thanks, I was going to do that next, but wanted to give CatcherStorm a chance to reply first since he was handling it. Nevertheless, it's now at AfD, so, to my earlier comment, Rosguill, you may not need to do anything. Doug Mehus T·C 06:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Equivocal Redirect

Thanks for your time user- Rosguill. On this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omkar_Rai - I too go along with subject coverage which seems spokesman but checked and found other references contradicting this. Though article was redirected to current serving organisation but both serve different purpose. Both stands true but stand apart. Subject is an individual and redirect is an organisation. Added other citation to keep it separate. You can have a look now and share insight around. Also subject reference found as Dr. so should this be included in article name. Great to learn and contribute.cheers..RufinaSmith (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

NPP Enrollment

Hello, Rosguill. I am a Wikipedia member since 2010 but actively started contributing from the last few months. While creating new pages I came to know that there are a good amount of backlogs to be reviewed. I would like to get enrolled under you for improvements in NPP and become a Page reviewer one day. Let me know if you find me eligible to take under you. The9Man | (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, are you asking to do the WP:NPPSCHOOL course, or are you just asking for the NPP permission? I think your track record at AfD is strong enough that if you wanted to jump in with a trial run of the permission I would be willing to confer it. Alternatively, if you think you need to learn relevant policies better first, then NPPSCHOOL is the way to go. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I am glad you found my track record is satisfying. I have read most of the policies and looking forward to getting some tips from experienced veterans to improve myself. However, if you find it appropriate please give me a trial run. I will keep learning along with the process. The9Man | (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, I've granted you reviewer rights for 10 days, please try to review 10-30 articles in that time. One word of advice off the bat is that while it looks like the articles you've created generally meet WP:NFILM, I would generally expect stronger sources from new articles than you've typically been providing (in particular, quality of coverage is as important as the publication's prestige or reliability. Q&A interviews in the Times of India or Deccan Herald or photo galleries should not be considered significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you for showing trust. The more I go through the backlogs I realize it is surely not an easy task to perform which leads to the long backlogs. I believe the better judgments come with experience. I will try to complete at least the number of articles you have mentioned during this 10 days period. Is there any way I can reach you if I am double-minded while taking decision calls? Also is there any other tips or suggestions you would like to share?
Regarding WP:NFILM articles I create, I will keep in mind your advice. Thank you for the same.
The9Man | (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, feel free to ping me on the talk pages of articles that you're on the fence about. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have several articles that could use reviewing

Hi, I have several articles that could use reviewing here is the list.

• 2020 NCAA Division I softball rankings
• Draft:Brian Jean-Mary
• St. Pete/Clearwater Elite Invitational

I would just like them to be reviewed so I know what still needs work. Please let me know. Thanks

Eibln (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Eibln, here are my assessments:

1. 2020 NCAA Division I softball rankings – the only one of the three articles which was actually in the NPP queue. No concerns here, I marked it as approved. The only things which you could have done to improve the article would have been adding more talk page wikiproject banners (which I took care of using User:Evad37/rater), and trying to tweak the formatting of the page a little so that the first set of rankings isn't cramped up against the infobox
2. Draft:Brian Jean-Mary – I don't think this one is quite up to snuff yet. It doesn't look like Jean-Mary meets the SNGs WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH, so you would need to provide enough citations to establish that he meets WP:GNG. I didn't look at each citation in detail, but just from the titles I would be rather surprised if there is significant enough coverage inside to meet GNG. Articles that just briefly state that someone was hired or fired from a position are considered routine press and generally don't count toward establishing notability. You can still use such sources to support claims in an article, but you're going to need to have additional, more detailed coverage to justify the article existing.
3. St. Pete/Clearwater Elite Invitational – It looks like SportingFlyer already reviewed this one, and I agree with their assessment: it needs additional citations to sources that are independent of the subject in order to more firmly establish its claim to notability _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you very much for giving me the feedback. I have tried my best to find as much as I can to get St. Pete/Clearwater Elite Invitational approved. I will continue working on it. Do you have ideas of what I could add to make Draft:Brian Jean-Mary better and get it approved? Thanks again,

Eibln (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Eibln, for Brian Jean-Mary you'd want to find articles in independent sources providing an overview of his career, or in depth coverage of a specific role of his career. That having been said, it's entirely possible that such sources just don't exist at this time, in which case the subject just isn't notable yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Jax Jones and Martin Solveig Present Europa

Hi, Rosguill! My name is Abraham. You have changed the “Europa” page to a redirect page which I feel is not fair. The initial page tells information about the duo which is what people actually want to read. Please don’t keep changing it to a redirect page! There is more to read about Europa. They have a background, discography, etc. So please revert your edits. Abraham Benno (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Benno, articles on Wikipedia need to have citations to reliable sources, which you neglected to provide when you were converting the redirect to an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Rosguill! Thanks for getting back to me regarding the issue. I have understood your explanation as to why my article was reverted to a redirect page. It has been helpful and I will cite articles from now on. I will get back to editing said page (with citations). Thanks for your help! Abraham Benno (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent sources Roberto Venturoni

I have inserted sources declared by two State Museums, bibliographic that come from public Libraries, now I have to insert the authority entry of OPAC SBN, soon we will have the author on ULAN. How do I have other sources can I ask you to verify them? User:EXART2000 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

EXART2000, I'm having a bit of trouble following your comment, but from taking another look at the article, the issue is that the article is overly reliant on database entries and primary sources. The gold standard of sourcing on Wikipedia are prose articles that analyze the subject in depth, and at a glance I don't see that on Roberto Venturoni. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Saagar Enjeti

Hi Rosguill, we debated about deleting / redirecting vs. keeping the page "Saagar Enjeti". I was wondering if, in your opinion, this article would meet the criteria of reliable secondary sources to resurrect the article? There's a good deal of material on the subject (starts at the heading "A Curious Conservative"). Thanks. Mistipolis (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mistipolis, it's definitely a step in the right direction. I don't remember off hand what the existing balance of sources at the AfD, so I can't answer with confidence if this is enough to push Enjeti over the notability line. I think you'd probably be within your rights to try to boldly resurrect the article with that citation in tow, although I can't guarantee that it will be accepted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Rosguill. I'll give it a shot and go through the process. Mistipolis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Edward Ardolino

Hi, Rosguill. Thank you for reviewing Edward Ardolino. I see you tagged the article, and I would like to work toward having the tags removed. One tag states the article relies too heavily on primary sources despite the 70+ published references. Perhaps you are objecting to the dozen or so listed projects that are marked with an asterisk rather than a reference? In the End Notes an explanation appears that an asterisk denotes the attribution to Ardolino can be found on his letterhead archived with the Papers of (noted sculptor) Lee Lawrie housed at the Library of Congress. Are papers archived at the Library of Congress not considered an acceptable source? I would appreciate your advice on this. Much thanks. In addition, another three or four projects are not marked with either an asterisk or a reference. I believe they are correctly attributed, but having no published sources I can delete them in order to assist in having the tags removed. Thank you in advance for your reply.E54495a (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

E54495a, I think that the issue with the article is that it's cobbled together from very brief mentions of Ardolino, or sometimes just coverage of buildings Ardolino worked on without mentioning Ardolino. At its worst, this brushes up against original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Ideally, we should primarily be citing coverage in secondary sources that directly assesses Ardolino's life and work. Before removing the tag, I'd like to see 3–4 citations to such sources, and claims reliant on synthesizing information from multiple sources should be removed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)