User talk:Rosguill

Epic Rap Battles of History redirects

Is it normal that all the categories on the redirects got removed? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4 first I've ever noticed that, not sure what to make of it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly add Category:Epic Rap Battles of History to all of them while retargeting, but the other categories are specific to the episodes. I really didn't want to do that manually. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, if you're going through them to retarget to sections anyway, the easier method may be to restore the pre-close state and then change the target to the correct location. Might be worth running by a technical request related noticeboard to see if they have any ideas for either resolving the current situation or fixing the bug that caused it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Any updates? As it seems from Special:Diff/885852612, @Richhoncho: opposes this categorisation (btw, due to the lack of Category:Epic Rap Battles of History on the redirect, this one had not even been part of the nomination). Should I just retarget them without restoring the categories? Otherwise, some kind of mass-revert would be needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, I think retargeting without restoring categories is fine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I had no time to do this yet, but is the tool continuing to remove categories from redirects? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, in the case of this edit, I see that it removed redirect categories, which are really implemented as templates. I think that that's actually an appropriate automated action to take on an RfD closed as redirect, as rcats generally describe the relationship between a redirect and its target, and thus are often going to be inaccurate after the target is changed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I did the changes (didn't make it before the New Year). Apparently, the tool also skipped quite a few pages, so they weren't targeting the list in the first place; that caused a bit of confusion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I created some redirects that were missing to fill the gaps. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Tim Cooper (academic)

I can confirm that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits on the wiki page headed Tim Cooper (academic). Greenthc57 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, this disclosure should go on your talk page, not mine, or no one else will see it. Also, please clarify as to whether you have any other connection to Tim Cooper or his associates. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies - I'm a novice at editing wiki and put it on both of our talk pages. I am Tim Cooper and my only edits were factual corrections to the draft, which was written by someone who has in the past been employed by my university.Greenthc57 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, ok, we still consider that to be a conflict of interest. Please follow the instructions at WP:COIDISCLOSE. Are you aware of any other accounts affiliated with your university that may have worked on the article? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed the COI on the relevant Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tim_Cooper_(academic) Greenthc57 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC) The person who originated this page was at the time an employee at Nottingham Trent University. This is stated clearly by Matt Shapley. Greenthc57 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The entry still has the banner 'This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. (October 2020).' What needs to happen for this to be removed?Greenthc57 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, there's still an editor that made significant contributions to the article that has not responded properly to requests for disclosure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The only editor with whom I've had recent contact says that he has informed you that he's a university employee. I thought he had done that already. On the matter of notability, there will be some further evidence in a UK Government report on eletronic waste published tomorrow. Unfortunately, previous third party references to notability on the page have been removed and the link for a couple that remain no longer work. I could correct the latter, but you advised me not to edit the page. Greenthc57 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Greenthc57, you can request that other editors make changes to the page using Template:Request edit (follow that link for the documentation) at Talk:Tim Cooper (academic). The last editor I was suspicious about just posted a disclosure, so I've swapped the {{undisclosed paid}} with {{coi}} _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Status of Republic of Artsakh

Hello. In my opinion, the status of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh article is incorrect. If the state does not recognize it, the country to which it belongs must also be written in its status. For example, unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not like Arsakh in the article. Arsakh's status was written by three non-UN member states. Sorry, is this important? Does it matter? However, they are unrecognized separatist organizations. Even four countries have recognized the independence of those separatist organizations. But Arsakh was not recognized by any state. Excuse me, why isn't the Republic of Artsakh article the same as the 3 unrecognized states article? Don't you think this is a double standard? Sword313 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sword313, I agree with the answer that EdJohnston gave you already [1]. At this point, you could consider making an edit request at Republic of Artsakh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Getting rid of the POV tag on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Hi Rosguill, what would your take on this be? In your experience, is there likely to be any plausible way of resolving this POV tag? It looks unsubstantiated to me (it's a long, untidy article, so there'll be plenty of bits that need cleaning up, but as a whole it doesn't lean strongly in favour of either side) and the linked section is a malformed RfC which is unlikely to get resolved any time soon (there's a decent chance it'll be prematurely closed) and doesn't actually address a NPOV issue (one side doesn't want to drop the stick until every reference to "disputed" Nagorno-Karabakh is changed to "occupied"). Or in these situations is the only option to wait it out, with the POV tag sitting unaddressed, and probably undeserved, for several months until the editors thin out? I fear it's the latter case, but I just wondered in case you think there are practical steps that could be taken to get this resolved more quickly, while there are still a high volume of views. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 20:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Jr8825, at a glance, I think that the two ways out would be to either 1) try to start a new discussion arguing that the template is unnecessary, regardless of whether there are a few issues unresolved here or there or 2) appeal to a fully uninvolved admin to intercede at AN. This is unfortunately a very busy month for me so I can't commit to being much of a help beyond this advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll try and give the article a proper comb through next week, and then probably take it to AN and see if anyone there is able to help. As many of the regular editors are emotionally involved in the topic I doubt much headway would be made going through the talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 21:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding Armtura's actions that you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Armatura. Thank you. — Mirhasanov (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Busy

Have you been working in the Covidarium? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I have not, dankn gott, the extent of my contribution to fighting covid has been taking on more domestic work for my partner who is on the front lines so to speak. My busy-ness this month has been a product of a bunch of unrelated obligations that all piled up on me. If all goes well I'll be back to normal come mid-December. But until then my Wikipedia contributions will probably be limited to keeping the NPP redirect queue in check and not much more than that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Maddening, isn't it. Looks like I escaped in a nick of time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Malankara Metropolitans

Big ask, so feel free to say no, but could you look at List of Malankara Metropolitans and see if you can help the two editors come to some kind of agreement, or at least an understanding of WP:EW? While edit warring blocks are on the table, I don't think they'll actually fix anything, but I also don't have the emotional bandwidth right now to wade through that mess and avoid making it worse. I saw you volunteer at DRN and thought you might be a good person to ask to step in, but if you're not able or willing to mediate that feel free to handle it however or just ignore it entirely. Thanks, and I hope you're keeping well! — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I appreciate the request, although I'm spread a bit thin at the moment outside of Wikipedia. There's a chance I'll have time tomorrow, if not I probably won't be able to look at this before Tuesday. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Closure

I am reading through the discussion at Talk:Armenian-controlled_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested_move_21_October_2020 and (also Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions) and would like to close it. I'm not an admin and I also see that you indicated your intention to close it. May I close it? VR _talk 02:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, go for it, my statement of intent was more to placate the NK conflict regulars that someone will get around to closing the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I just closed that discussion...only to realize that I can't move the article because it is move protected. So I filed it as an uncotested technical move request here per Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure (Editors are permitted to close the discussion and file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion.) If you notice anything improper please let me know.VR _talk 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, looks good at a glance, thanks for taking the initiative on this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

NPP/School application

Hello there. I came here to ask if you would be interested in being my NPP school mentor. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, I'm unfortunately swamped this week and can't commit right now. If you haven't found a mentor by the second week of December or so I can look into taking you on as a student. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

Two users reverted my edit, one calling it "nonsense", other says it is the "last warning" although I never had a warning by him or by other user on that article. Relevant diffs:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_(Iran)&diff=990128902&oldid=990050481
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_(Iran)&diff=990131141&oldid=990130477

Second user says: "Azerbaijani" has nothing to do here, last warning. Isn't that lying. And do you see any disruptive editing here? I changed the language to south Azeri instead of northern version, and added category for Azerbaijani irredentism, while the article mentions irredentism. Could you please say your opinions? See relevant talk. Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, I don't have time to look into this this week unfortunately, you're probably best off looking for help elsewhere if you want anything to happen before mid-December. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Divisione Italia

Ciao: in history there were various [Divisione Italia], including those formed by emigrants in South America. Moreover, Italian fighters have massacred each other by themself in Italy and everywhere across the past centuries in world's history: I renamed a red link. No problem and regards.--Passando (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

NPR

Hi Rosguill, I seem to recall that you were open to granting me NPR or at least another trial. Would that be possible? I'd ask at perm but I never fail to create drama there. Thanks, Zindor (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Zindor, in principle I would be willing to look into it but right now is a really busy time for me so I can't promise that I'll be able to get to it anytime soon. I would suggest you ask at perm, I'm not really sure what would cause drama there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding. I've now asked at Perm. Zindor (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input on Template:Talk header

Hi Rosguill! Since you were the closer of the sidebar follow-up, I was wondering whether you might be able to offer your perspective on the matter at Template talk:Talk header#Sandbox. To boil it down, it's a continuation of the disagreement over which introduction page is best. As part of a suite of changes, I proposed that we update the template's link from WP:Contributing to Help:Introduction. Moxy objected, raising some of the same arguments they did at the discussion you closed, and no one else took a side. I still felt comfortable including it in the sandboxed mockup which we subsequently implemented, in part because of the precedent from the sidebar discussion and the other discussions where H:I has consistently prevailed. Moxy promptly reverted (edit summary: dont see anyone that agrees to this bad link), effectively demanding we establish a local consensus.

Personally, my view is that we've already held as large a discussion as we're likely to be able to have on the respective merits of the different intro pages, and that because the question doesn't meaningfully change based on the context (whichever page is best is best, whether it's linked from the sidebar or {{Talk header}} or somewhere else) we should go by the best precedent we have rather than rehashing the same dispute at every turn. I also believe that, per WP:CONLEVEL, Moxy should not be able to override with their sole objection the much broader discussions we've had on the intro page. How do you feel? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I should note that Robert McClenon graciously tried moderating a discussion between Moxy and myself over this (after I sought help at DRN), but it unfortunately didn't really go anywhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My position is simple....a talk about one page does not mean that every other help page should be orphaned and changed at every turn. This one edit of 500 is contested.--Moxy 🍁 05:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb, User:Moxy - I will comment that one reason that my mediation was unsuccessful was that neither of you summarized what the issue was concisely. I still am not sure what it is that the two of you are disagreeing out. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We have an editor replacing our main help page with an edit tutorial to the dismay of those that Graphics are aware of how editors navigate and read. We had a few rfc's that has now resulted in the editor orphanage our project designed community edited page that leads to all our different intros for this one intro ( this would be the exact opposite of what the help project intended). Your current revert has removed the status quo with a link to a format that has failed us in the past and is currently deterring 9000 potential new editors a day. One of the worst choices we have seen here in a long time. We have a new page in the works but the WMF is slow....but now I fear that the change over will be a sluggle.--Moxy 🍁 00:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, my understanding is that I reverted to what was established as the weak status quo following an RfC and remains contested by you, but appears to be at least tacitly supported by every other participant at Template_talk:Talk_header#Sandbox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually everyone else abstained at that page.... perhaps waiting for those with knowledge of how pages. :I will simply have to make a better case when I have time an make a new rfc. It's disheartening to see what is happening with the loss of accessibility the new pages have caused. It's hard to watch the advice of our accessibility and help projects rejected. Years of data and research went down the drain by one good intention new editor. We are talking about a page that was put to the way side years ago because we know the problem with retaining readers with modules. Now that page is over 70 pages long and is not able to retain 10 percent of its readers after the first page that has zero serviceable information on it. This retention result is even worse then our 2 other module experiments from the past "Tab tutorial" and the " Wikipedia adventure" that we learned a great deal from. That said no intent on any deletion as our readers should have a choice in style as different readers have different preferences thus why our main prose help page links to all the different intro, normal help pages and the missing manual etc.... some design by the visual editor team... some by the helproject... some by the educational team and others by individual editors. It's too bad the main community pages is being orphaned and I fear it's only going to get worse now. Perhaps best the Next Generation learns for themselves.--Moxy 🍁 02:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see that User:Moxy feels strongly that some approach is wrong. I can also see that there has been a complex RFC that was, unsurprisingly, largely inconclusive. At this point I think that I was right in originally closing the DRN thread, and was probably mistaken in reconsidering and trying to moderate. I still don't understand what the issues are. If there is another RFC, please notify me so that I can participate in it. Otherwise I think that I am accomplishing nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC are not always the best thing. What we have is editors not familiar with how to be present information making random votes. As seen at both RFC those that work on help pages brought up the many problems but were overwhelmed by those that think the page "looks good"....who dont care about editor retention or have every edited help pages. We are now loosing potential editors on mass. 2 pages linked for our main page both are peaking peoples interest (10,000 hits a day) but once they see the first page with zero info and action buttons they turn away from reading more (not even 1000 move on to a second page). We already knew about this behavior as we have tried it before 2 times...having collected lots of data with the knowledge that people wont read thru multiple pages to find serviceable information especially those on mobile devices and the fact action buttons are a deterrent for older editors (the type we are looking for). I understand the community cant always get it right...but in this case its causing us to loos many potential new editors. As seen above process was more of a concern then content presentation to the dismay of our project.. --Moxy 🍁 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

not familiar with how to be present information making random votes welcome to democracy. Ultimately, you have to make the convincing argument (to people less familiar) and if it fails to gain traction (regardless of whether you were right or not) there's not much that can be done about it. The rest of us mostly abstained on template talk because I (and I presume others too) have no clue which is actually better than the other, but I find the pageviews an unconvincing argument. Whilst it may be evidence that Help:Introduction has poor clickthrough, it is not evidence that it is worse than its predecessors (which may well also have a low reading rate, or immediate "close tab", but since it's all on one page that can't be measured).

The project has seemingly failed at increasing new editor participation for years now, so what we're doing now isn't quite working it seems. Hence, I think it's better to try something (based on some kind of reasonable logic), than do nothing. Sidenote: I'd like to see data on what proportion of our most active editors in mainspace and projectspace, separately, are older-time editors; e.g. what year they first hit 100 edits / became autoconfirmed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Stats Wikipedia adventure tried as the main link after its grant in the summer of 2013. Wikipedia tutorial tried in the summer of 2016 after I updated it the summer before (sad outcome for lots of work) and then our new intro implemented during the pandemic when one might think we should have had a surge in new editors because everyone was home...but what we got was close to our worst month every just last month. Not one of these intros has info on registration on its first page. You are correct that we have no clue if people read info when all on one page but at least we know the info is on that page they are looking at...no point in many pages if noone is even loading them to view them. --Moxy 🍁 13:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Teqvoly moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Teqvoly, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, not sure why the script decided that I should get this notification, as I nominated the redirect for RfD but did not make any further edits. You may want to notify editors more involved in editing it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you check?

Could you check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetaMask? It does not look like it's close to a consensus. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, were you just looking for someone to close the discussion or was there something specific that you thought needed looking into? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it does not look to be a clear consensus so if you want you can close it as a no consensus or whatever you want. I was asked to add my comment on the afd and did it, but it looks just like a mess. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, ok. I may take a look if I get a chance today, but generally the AfD-closure backlog is well-managed so I would expect that someone else may get to it soon regardless. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Rosguill, you did a really good job reviewing pages. Thank you. Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 18:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill

...is it Rosguill or the conflation Rosguil since they can't tell themselves apart? Drmies (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, it's the latter, I don't remember why I ended up adding the extra L. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha--how appropriate. What's the first thing you remember? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I was going to ask "last as in first or last as in last" but now that you changed your question that's even more confusing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

[2]! Drmies (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I suppose it would be a stretch to shout "rhetoric!" and claim the point? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I would like to thank you for patrolling all of my pointless redirects, however, I do not appreciate the unpronounceability of your username. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, I tend to think it's pronounced roz-gill but it's hard to tell because no one ever has to say it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request on a template

Hi! So, I had an edit request on {{Country data Azerbaijan}}, as its edit-protected at the moment. Currently, {{Air force|Azerbaijan}} shows the flag of Azerbaijan, rather than the flag of its Air Forces. I believe it is related to the country data template. So, could you help out? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I don't do much template editing and don't really know off hand how to go about fixing this issue, although your proposed change seems correct. As a side note, I don't see any actual edit request from you at the page in question _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, well, is there anyone you know who can fix the issue? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I would ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template. Looking at the template's code, it looks like no one has set up any special behavior for "Air force", so it makes sense that it's defaulting to the normal flag. As far as the template is concerned, you may as well be typing gibberish. What needs to be done is to add a special case for Air force with the correct thumbnail along the lines of what's been done for the other branches of the military. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you for your time. I'll make a request there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove request of a Note

Please remove the note inserted in the Mioty article here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIoTy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkis0 (talk • contribs)

Assuming you want me to remove the {{notability}} template, the additional sources you've provided appear to be either primary sources ([3], [4], [5]), press releases ([6], [7]), or else are published in trade magazines that don't appear to be reliable ([8]). The notability issues have not been adequately addressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Rosguill,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations

Please accept my warmest congratulations on your reward. Thank you and best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, I didn't actually win anything this year, although the goodwill is appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Still, 63,000 reviews is quite impressive—you nearly beat the bot! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Request For Review/Input

Hi Rosguill (talk · contribs) - I would love your input/thoughts & such for my draft Draft:Michael Weist -- based on your experience & knowledge. This draft is part of Article Rescue Squadron and has quite a long history, including a creation protection. As such, I've worked to expand, fix, properly format, and cite - but would LOVE your input - Thank you!  :) Viralmemes (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Viralmemes, right off the bat, the article comes off as extremely promotional and likely needs a top to bottom rewrite in order to be acceptable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What happened to Rocket Mortgage?

Why was the page for Rocket Mortgage deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Mortgage

Seems like a better case for changing some of the language than outright deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019valley (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote in the relevant edit summary, please submit Draft:Rocket Mortgage through AfC rather than copy-pasting it onto the redirect's page. Copying articles in this manner breaks our edit attribution, which can cause copyright issues for Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing title of Wikipedia article

Hi, Rosguill. After discussions on the Talk-Page of Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism, contributing editors there have decided in favor of changing the title of the article to "Capital Punishment in Judaism." The problem is that there is already a Redirect under that name, which redirects to the very same article, and which prevents us from changing the title. I went to the "Move" section and, when I tried to change the title, received a message that the page's title cannot br changed, since there already exists a title by that name. Can you please help us fix the problem?Davidbena (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena,  Done and implemented as a swap. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A thousand thanks!Davidbena (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Weser Renaissance

I looked around a bit and found several international reviews of their recordings. I put one in external links, but am too tired to format it (and others) properly and use. Can you please simply withdraw the deletion proposal. I'll have time next year, - now its Beethoven - Christmas - family. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, done. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Typhoon Molave

Hi Rosguill, wanted to let you know that you moved the article Typhoon Molave but you forgot to move the talk page (still at Talk:Typhoon Molave (2020)) where the requested move is also still open. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

BegbertBiggs, not sure why the talk page got left behind. My failure to close the RM was because I came across the page in the new pages queue as opposed to the RM log. It's all been taken care of now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CTang04

Hi this edit just showed up mysteriously in the middle of my talk page. It looks like an editor you blocked two days ago trying to get round their block by dumping sources in the hope that other editors will continue their edit war for them. All the best Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, you're probably right, but this is petty enough that I don't see any reason to take further action. If their behavior turns more persistent or tendentious then broadening their block would be in order. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384

I just noticed the results of this RFD. Tavix mentioned Windows Photo Editor not existing, but I think that might just be because it's a technical name for the editing feature of the "Photos" app.
The result also creates a red link on File:Two Gormiti figures.jpg. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide references for this claim and add it to the article? I think a redlink on that file is correct unless there's specific information about that version we can direct people to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tavix: I tried my best, but I guess it isn't meant to be. No sources found. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Darn, well thanks for trying! I think I remember coming up empty when I did a quick check during the RfD. :\ -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Create red link or redirect for case of primary topic with one other topic?

Seeking your opinion for the situation where there is an article under a place name, and you become aware there is another place under the same name, mentioned somewhere on WP (black text only), and you wish to disambiguate. You reason the topic that actually has an article is indeed the primary topic. Is it better to follow WP:PRIMARYRED, creating red links for the secondary topic where appropriate, a two-item dab page at Topic (disambiguation), and add a hatnote to the dab page, or follow WP:ONEOTHER by creating a redirect to where the topic is mentioned and use a hatnote on the primary topic page? The caveat here is, in this case, the topic is a place, and the secondary topic is in Montana, so the red link or redirect would be Place (Montana), and the potential redirect target would only describe roughly where in Montana the place is, so it's unclear if it rises to the level of a redirect. Plus, I don't think a hatnote would be needed or appropriate on the redirect target page, though, as nobody reaching that page would be searching for the primary topic, contrary to the situation described at WP:ONEOTHER, so maybe I just answered my own question with this thought experiment. But, I'm still curious for your take on it (and wonder if maybe some additional explanation at these sections of WP:DAB might help others in similar situations). Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mdewman6, for these questions generally it comes down to the exact extent of coverage and relative prominence of the topics, which can be nigh impossible to guess accurately, but given how you've laid it out here PRIMARYRED seems like the way to go. It's rarely beneficial to direct readers away from the topic with the most coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Victoria sur le Parc

I thought that might be the case, since it seemed pretty well-developed, but since I can't see the prior version I threw the CSD tag on it. It's also why I marked it reviewed at the same time, since if an admin looked at, like you did, and saw substantial differences, I felt it passed notability criteria. Although I agree WP:TOOSOON might apply, I wasn't that stuck on it, since it is under construction. If they hadn't started construction yet, I'd agree, although I wouldn't argue with someone else who had that viewpoint, however. Thanks again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, I'm honestly surprised that the last draft made it to AfD, it was a two-sentence stub. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin Closure Question

Hi Rosguill,

Thanks for reviewing the admin closure request at: Draft talk:Shift4 Payments#Request for Comments re: Draft: Shift4 Payments. I have some questions. First, I don’t understand the “no consensus” closure. Three of three independent editors (not counting me) said it met WP:NCOP. Some did not like the draft because it included analysts reports, so I removed all of these and did a substantial rewrite. I pinged the editor who specified what he didn’t like about the content, and they did not respond. Prior to the RfC, I went to Help for AfC two different times. An editor there said they wanted feedback from multiple editors -- so I started the RfC. After the RfC was complete, I pinged them. And they did not respond. If I need to submit the draft again, I will, but the title Draft:Shift4 Payments is already taken. I can’t resubmit after a rejection. Is there an admin action that will clear this title so it can be submitted? Or do I just need to change the title? I don’t want to seem like I am going around the previous discussions, Thanks Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul.jonah.paul, this situation is highly unusual so there isn't really an established procedure. I've gone ahead and readded an AfC submission template to the draft, as well as a comment explaining the situation to any prospective reviewer. You should be able to submit it for review now. As for my closure itself, my thought process there was that editors seemed to approve of it on notability grounds but had some lingering concerns on COI/neutrality grounds. Thus, it's ok to resubmit it, but an AfC reviewer could object to perceived neutrality issues (at which point you could revise and resubmit). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

AFD Ghazi Bismillah khan

Hi Rosguill, not sure what to do about this I was NPP reviewing the above and tagged in for AFD via page curation but the request never went through to current AFD's. I removed the AFD tag so I could re-nominate via Twinkle which I did, but at the same moment another NPP patroller Modussiccandi also tagged AFD resulting in 2 entries now over there. Neither myself or the other reviewer are familiar with using XFD closer to close one or the other, can you assist? Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 23:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, 2nd nomination has been closed, sorry for bothering you. JW 1961 Talk 23:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Adopt-A-User

Hi, could you adopt me? You're an admin, and I'm hoping to be an admin, so is it possible you could help me get started on Wikipedia? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 20:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0, I would say that it's far too early to consider becoming an admin. What sort of editing work are you interested in doing? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

New page patrolling, counter-vandalism, mostly stuff that doesn't require writing articles. I am terrible at writing, so I stick to the more technical side. I was hoping you'd adopt me. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 21:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0, new page patrolling one of the most complex processes on Wikipedia, so I don't think it would be appropriate for you to jump right into that at this point. I would suggest stopping by WP:TASKS and trying some anti-vandalism, categorization, copy editing or fact-checking work. Work on that for a few weeks and see how it goes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0 I will do that right now. Quick question: Would this be a "yes" to the adoptee request? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk · contribs · moves · rights) 21:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

BlackWidowMovie0, I don't think there's any need for formal adopting right now. Get some more experience on your own and come back after a few weeks of work if you think you still need guidance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my redirects!

Hello! Thank you for reviewing my redirect pages of Toyotas. Please let me know on my talk page if one of the redirects is done incorrectly. DestinationFearFan (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor: Hania_Tarik - Blocked

Hi, I see that you have placed a block on Hani Tarik for paid contributions. Hani is participating in WikiGap Pakistan Online Challenge 2020 and all edits were made in respect to this Challenge. You can see her username (#24) on the official List of Participants. Since she is a new user, I would appreciate if you could please overlook it this time and life the block. I will advise her to ensure that in the future it does not happen and if she is ever paid or participates in the next Challenge she put its on her user page. I am overseeing the Gap this year. If you need more information, please leave me a message. Thanks, Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Challenge has now closed and any further edits will not be related to this year's WikiGap. Khilari&historian (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Khilari&historian, I'm willing to consider an unblock appeal from her, but I'm highly concerned by the nature of many of her edits. The pace of her work is almost inconceivable for a single person working alone, let alone a new editor doing the same, and many of the subjects she was working on (e.g. Draft:Sadaffe Abid, Draft:Seema Aziz) are high-risk for paid editing and have issues with neutrality and the use of non-independent sources. Her editing patterns bear other hallmarks of paid editing as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concern about her being paid for these articles. I know that she is not a paid editor (at least for these articles) and the motivation is winning the first/second prize (laptop or cell phone). The two articles you mentioned are actually those which have been suggested by the WikiGap team along with almost all of her other articles. Yes she has written a high number of articles but there are others with even more though mostly on the Urdu Wikipedia. Regarding quality, I have chosen to leave it to the larger Wikipedia community to comment on so that the WikiGap Team can claim neutrality in the matter. Tags for neutrality/non independent sources can be placed on them and she is responsible for making sure that the issues are cleared up. I hope this clears any misgivings you have regarding her contributions. I would appreciate if you would unblock her and restore her articles (or I can restore them if you agree). Thanks. Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Khilari&historian, I still have some lingering concerns, and would like to see an unblock request come from Hania Tarik herself, as I think that that could help clear things up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Rosguill, I have asked her to make the request as well. Thanks, Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Khilari&historian, I've unblocked Hania Tarik and restored the articles. I do have two suggestions for future WikiGap events that would help avoid this situation. The first is to tell participants to clearly denote their participation on their user page. The second is to not recommend everybodywiki (and similar offbrand wikis) as a resource on the suggested articles page. Pages generally end up on off-brand wikis after being deleted as spam from Wikipedia, so even if the editor importing the content may be working in good faith, they will likely be inadvertently reintroducing promotional content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill. I have noted your suggestions for future events and will forward them to the concerned individuals. Regards Khilari&historian (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Luke Hughes (ice hockey)

I 100% agree that Luke Hughes (ice hockey) is Wikipedia:Too soon and I think that one of the only reasons his article has been created twice is because of his "famous" family (fame is relative to hockey of course). However, I think he is very close to passing GNG so this may be a useful article to keep an eye on. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, in that case it may be worth asking the editor who created the most recent version if they'd prefer to see it draftified. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Free Nationals

The history shows that you moved the draft into article space in response to a G6 request. Was the G6 request made by an AFC reviewer, or by the originator? I don't have any objection to accepting the draft into article space, but I am wondering whether it was reviewed or simply moved, because gaming of AFC is becoming common (both when the use of AFC is expected and when it is optional). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the request was from SL93, who is an AfC reviewer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I placed a speedy deletion tag so that the draft could replace a redirect. If I did it the improper way, I'm sorry. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SL93 - That is what G6 is for. Thank you. Could you please look at Free Nationals (album), and see if it also should be accepted? Also, I will mark Free Nationals as a page that went through AFC; that is not important, but that is a nice-to-track thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I will start reviewing the album now. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I took care of it and placed a G6 tag on the redirect. Thanks for letting me know of the album. SL93 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you Happy Holidays! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Have a Happy Holidays!

CaptainGalaxy is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas).

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

— 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas dear senior colleague and wishing you a happy new year ahead. I never got the chance to thank you properly for taking a chance on me. Thanks for that my friend. Once again, merry Christmas !!!! Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

File:Christmas tree decorations 5.jpg	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!
	Hello Rosguill, Wishing you a joyous holiday season and a happy and peaceful New Year. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 23:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your review!

Rosguill Thank you very much for reviewing the Matt Gallagher (filmmaker) article! Kind Regards, LorriBrown (talk)

Moving page to Draft as Draft:NSTEP

Thanks Rosguill for reviewing my Article titled 'NSTEP'. Will try to make it as a normal Article by introducing Notability. It seems to be a Manual. I will change it to the standards of WiKipedia Article. I may need your help, if necessary. !!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.R.V. Ravi (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

May this Christmas fill your life with new hope, positivity, joy and bliss. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your dear ones! RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

America's Book of Secrets

Did you delete this article? Why is there no record of it being deleted? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, converting articles for shows/albums/etc. that fall far short of notability guidelines into redirects to the program list articles for channels that list the shows is a standard practice WP:BOLD edit that is part of new page reviewing. You are of course perfectly within your rights to revert it, and it appears that the next reviewer to come along thought your additional citation was sufficient to leave the article standing for now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Dear Rosguill,

Merry Christmas to you! I hope you and your loved ones have a wonderful time (after a strange year).

I haven't contributed much to WP in the past weeks and I hope to be able to do more next year - and possibly have more questions (you mentioned once that it´s okay to ask questions). Now I would have a question: Why are there sometimes "double spaces" at the beginning of a new sentence? Like in this article: Mike Groene

Thank you and enjoy the time between the years! --F.Blaubiget (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

F.Blaubiget, merry Christmas. Double spaces at the beginning of a new sentence is standard in some English language style guides. I don't use it in my own writing, but it is a long established practice. I'm not really sure offhand what our WP:MOS has to say about the issue, but I would assume that it's probably handled a la WP:ENGVAR: i.e. start articles with whichever convention you prefer, but try to be consistent within each article and don't go out of your way to flip everything. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill and understood: I had never noticed this practice before. Probably I will see it more often now (selective perception) but won´t touch it - consistent within each article is important. Have a nice New Year's Eve celebration! --F.Blaubiget (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg

Merry Christmas (:

Deprodding of Iman Qureshi

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Iman Qureshi, which you proposed for deletion. This tennis player in fact does pass WP:NTENNIS as she played for Pakistan in the Fed Cup [9]. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Iffy★Chat -- 15:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Rosguill! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Merry Christmas!

Hello Rosguill. Merry Christmas and thanks for all the continued hard work at NPP. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked UPE

Hello, per this, despite his claim of me having no evidence of him engaging in UPE, I actually have off wiki evidence which I mailed to paid-en-wp @wikipedia.org & would be willing to share it with you if you don’t mind. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, please do, much appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I just mailed you, check your inbox. I probably should have Cc’ed you in the very first e-mail I sent regarding the editor. Celestina007 (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor refuses move to draft

Hi, there's a problem which I've come across while patrolling new pages and I thought you might be able to help. A user (Shkupi Kumanova 1234) created an extensive, completely unsourced BLP (Adem Kastrati) which I tagged for CSD G11. The editor removed the tag, I restored but then someone else came along and moved it to draft. Now, the editor has immediately copy-pasted the article from the draft space back to the mainspace. I was about to draftify the article (again) but it's probable the editor will simply follow up by re-creating again. Is there anything that can be done to stop them from endlessly re-creating the article. Thanks and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, move warring is a bad idea even when you are 100% right about the underlying content. At this point, since they're clearly not planning on cooperating with AfC, tagging with BLPPROD seems to be the most appropriate course of action now that (insufficient) sources have been provided, I'm going to try talking to them. If they continue to be disruptive, a partial-block may be necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the advice! Modussiccandi (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Grand Mufti of Pakistan

Have you actually had a good look at the result of your closure at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#Grand Mufti of Pakistanand what looks like a WP:UNDUE effect of the section at Grand Mufti#Grand Mufti of Pakistan? I've other things to be looking at but the result looks not good, uncontained, undue and disruptional on a reasonably contentious article. There's been no notification of this upcoming contentious merge at the Grand Mufti article or it's talk page but the RfD trumps it. Not clever. Rethink. If I revert it I go against the RfD. Mess. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, I'm not sure I see what the issue is at the target, although it seems like the section would fit in better as a sub-section header alongside the other countries. Would that address the issue? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The fact that wasn't attempted was a concern and looks very undue and disruptional on a controversial article to me. I'd back out the whole merge as not notified to target article. Probably has to discuss whether Pakistan has a "Grand Mufti" at all. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark I would suggest that you raise this with the other editors involved in that discussion and try to find a resolution with them regarding the content at Grand Mufti. Regardless of what conclusion that discussion comes to, the solution for the redirect should be clear from there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill - I've reverted it. I recovering from Covid19 and I have less energy and patience at times and have limited truck with that disruption to an IPA article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Adem Kastrati

Mr. Rosguill, forgive me very much for the insult I did to you, I sincerely apologize. Please do not block me. And if you know, can you create a site called Adem Kastrati? I wish you a Merry Christmas— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkupi Kumanova 1234 (talk • contribs)

Shkupi Kumanova 1234, as I already told you a few times, you need to add more inline citations to reliable sources for claims in the article. While it's not always necessary to cite every single piece of information, you should not have entire paragraphs without citations. Additionally, you need to make the article more neutral. Finally, you are not allowed to copy text from copyrighted sources. Once you've done those things, resubmit the draft using the template at the top of the article. For more information, please read through WP:YFA. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi, Rosguill! Thank you for all your help on Wikipedia ! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Be safe Doratig (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Third party involvement

Hey, I saw this comment of yours. What do you mean by "third party is needed to keep the discussion from spiraling in circles"? At this point a third party mediator (preferably an admin) would be very much appreciated. Once upon a time wikipedia used to have mediation. Is that what you meant?VR _talk 04:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, it wasn't clear at a glance whether or not the discussion was going anywhere, but it was evident that it's still going at a decent pace. Given that the closing request was posted prematurely to begin with (per you, IIRC) there wasn't a clear indication that cutting the discussion short now was appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Query Regarding Page

Hi Rosguill,

I am contacting you after you put and AFD tag on the article I created Raybak Abdesselem I have closely checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Gymnastics notability and then I started creating the page. If you look closely the administrator was also working on this page, if the page was not notable he would have AFD himself. I asked 5 people before creating the page and they told me this.

• Junior Gymnastics athletes are deemed notable if they have won a medal, single or more Artistic gymnasts are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

Competed at the Summer Olympics or World Championships (Raybak has competed in 3 world championships from 2018 to 2020 Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition (Raybak has won two silver medals and one bronze in U21 and European Junior Karate Championship)

So my understanding is he is passing the notability, if you are saying he is a junior then he is already deemed notable.

--CGOV (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

CGOV, feel free to make that argument at the AfD, but karate ≠ gymnastics as far as I'm aware. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok :Rosguill but i am talking about athletes anyways. This time I made a new article via draft function can you see if that article is passing the notability so it won't be deleted in future. Draft:Rinki_Sethi

Thanks and happy holidays --CGOV (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Adem Kastrati

Hello sir, I also included some reliable sources in the draft on the Adem Kastrati page, you will surely like it, if there is any mistake you can search on Google by adding even more information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkupi Kumanova 1234 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor

Sorry for bothering you on Boxing Day but they are at it again & this is becoming very disruptive. Celestina007 (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, looks like the diff you're trying to show me got deleted (interestingly, the link doesn't work for me even with admin privileges). I'm assuming this was related to the Adem Kastrati issue? In which case it looks like someone else took care of it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

North Division (NHL) and North Division

When you get a moment would you mind taking a look at these two articles? As they also underwent a WP:CUTPASTE instead of proper move, similar to the Canadian Division issue that you helped resolve yesterday. Deadman137 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Deadman137, I think I was able to solve it. It was a bit trickier because there was a third page involved, so you should double check my work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see it looks like it went well, there was an intermediate edit on the talk page (from before the action) that needed to be fixed but it's resolved. Thanks. Deadman137 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Fenton [guitarist) of Siouxsie and the Banshees

I have just seen today a notice when logging in, that the page about Peter Fenton (guitarist) has been reviewed. Where on which page and when? I haven't even had a note on my talk page inviting me to join for a discussion.

And now when checking I see that this article has just been deleted whereas it was based on reliable sources. Can you provide a link for the previous discussion -- who took the decision to close that article, how many people, were they people who edit on music articles. Was it a collegial decision, wikipedia is a collaborative site or was it a unilateral decision taken by one person.

On wikipedia, there is an article about Pete Best - Beatles' first drummer - who didn't compose anything with the Beatles, whereas Peter Fenton composed three famous songs in the Siouxsie and the Banshees' repertoire. Carliertwo (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo, the article has been converted to a redirect, which can be revered if you go to Peter Fenton (guitarist). That having been said, the relevant guideline is WP:MUSICBIO, which establishes that musicians should not get standalone articles if they are notable only in the context of a single band. From reading Pete Best, it seems like he received a fair amount of coverage for his post-Beatles work (and I don't think a member of The Beatles, arguably the most storied band in rock history, is a good point of comparison for the relative notability of band members). Unless Fenton has received extensive coverage for work outside Siouxsie and the Banshees, there isn't really a basis for creating a separate article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You haven't replied to any of my questions. Where is the discussion leading to the deletion of the article: how many people took that decision, is it just you. At least, I would like to read a clear reply instead of getting some convolutions. Carliertwo (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo, it was a bold edit, no discussion necessary. If you disagree, you can revert. If I want to contest the point further, we'd have a discussion. This is how new page reviewing works. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:COMPOSER. It is said that a songwriter is notable if 1 has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. This is the case for Peter Fenton, two of his most famous songs / compositions were included on the Siouxsie and the Banshees' debut album and on their first compilation album. So yes I want to revert the edit. Carliertwo (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo, you can go ahead and revert and I won't touch the article again, but I'm rather confident that the next new page reviewer to come by is going to make the same call that I did. The relevant text at WP:NMUSIC is Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.. The composer guideline is more for people who are known as composers and songwriters (e.g. Irving Berlin), not for musicians who also have songwriting credits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Rigorous application of WP:NORG

Hi, our exchange at National Low Income Housing Coalition made me curious about how WP:NORG is applied. Took a random selection of articles from [organizations based in Washington, D.C.]. Don't all of these ACDI/VOCA, Development Gateway, Center for a Just Society miss by quite a bit? I would tag but I think tags are rarely constructive. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Bangabandhu, I agree that those seem to miss the mark. It looks like those articles were all created before new pages patrol was established. Development Gateway in particular smells of paid editing to me. I agree that tagging at this point is unlikely to do much (my philosophy with notability tags is that they're useful for alerting editors of recently created articles to issues, and stymieing paid editing, but their utility on articles where the initial editor is no longer watching is limited). It may be worth doing a proper WP:BEFORE and considering an AfD nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, that sounds like a reasonable approach to me. I'm often surprised at what is normative on Wikipedia just because it has gone unchallenged, and how much would change if guidelines were consistently applied. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri handicrafts

Rosguill Sir, I have recently edited the subject. Kindly have a look. Regards RV (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, I'm not really sure what you're asking me to look for. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I was expecting a review since it is revised. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, There's no standardized reviews for expanded articles unless you're planning on submitting them to DYK or GA. You can also ask for WP:Peer review, which seems to be what you're looking for. My cursory assessment is that it could use more inline references. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Well noted. Thanks RV (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Sahaib3005 (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

FalconK (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply regarding ANRFC

Hi Rosguill, regarding this, could you take another look and reconsider closing it now? Two other editors who should know better are carrying on as though the RfC never happened and still arguing that ONUS should be changed or removed or that it doesn't have consensus, etc. I think it needs to be closed now. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I'll look into this again tomorrow, but if all they're doing is continue to argue that's their decision to waste their time. Now if they're also trying to actually edit the policy text, that's a different story. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Two other editors who should know better"? Rosguill, I'm one of the editors discussing whether one disputed sentence belongs in the policy. It doesn't, in my view (it was added a few years ago without discussion). Which discussion does Crossroads want you to close? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The whole thing at WT:V. I'm sorry and I really respect your opinion on other things, but I don't understand why you are arguing as though it somehow doesn't have consensus. Regardless of whether it had consensus in 2014 (and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS at a major policy page has some weight), it definitely has consensus as of 2020 after the RfC. On what basis could someone argue otherwise? There is no stronger consensus than a Village Pump RfC, is there? If you really want to get rid of it you would need to start another RfC at a central location, but we just had one and, as you know, doing another right away is frowned upon (and there is no reason to think this one would go differently). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And I only came to Rosguill because they had addressed my original closure request at ANRFC. I wasn't hand-picking or anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in question is technically poorly written, so I tried recently to copy edit it without changing the meaning. I found I couldn't do it, because I don't know what it's saying, apart from WP:BRD. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Well yes, but it depends on a lot of other factors. The important point for me is that the sentence isn't about sourcing. The sourcing policy is about the need for sources. It isn't about consensus. It's important when writing core content policy that you not wade too much into other policies and guidelines, because then you have to keep monitoring other pages to make sure there are no contradictions. So WP:V should be about sourcing. That's why we're still discussing that sentence. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC touched on all that. Regardless of how a handful of editors on WT:V now feel about it, it's a very recently settled matter that it isn't being moved to or replaced by WP:CON and that changes to it could make it harder to remove bad content. Verifiability does touch on it because that content may not be verifiable to the claimed sources (either not in them outright or synthesized) or the sources may not be reliable. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That sentence says nothing about sourcing, and I don't see why moving it to Wikipedia:Consensus, also a policy, would make anything harder. Why do you care which page it's on? The editor who opened the RfC had no experience of writing an RfC about a content policy. One written by several editors with experience of editing WP:V might be received differently. Whether that will be tried, I don't know, but people have to be allowed to talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll give one more reply here just to clarify my thinking since you asked. I suppose it could technically be divided into two separate questions: should it be at WP:CON instead, and should its meaning be changed? I don't see any issue right now with it hypothetically being on the other page with the same meaning, but the effort to move it over there has always been part of the effort to change its meaning to something like "without consensus to remove, material has to stay". That latter idea has very definitely been rejected. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Having read through the discussion at issue a bit more carefully, I stand by my decision to decline to close it. I don't think there's any question about the outcome of the RfC portion, and editors are allowed to continue discussing related matters down-thread. If and when a local consensus for a change is formed, you can discuss whether an RfC is needed to make changes or not, but I don't think there's any danger of editors imposing a local consensus out of process (nor would formally closing the RfC portion make much of a difference in that regard). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks for thinking about it again. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete RfD closure

Hi. This closure seems incomplete. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul 012, hm, the script must have hit a hiccup, either due to the discussion being about a talk page or due to the weird title character. At any rate, I've gone through with it now, thanks for raising that to my attention. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please remove new page reviewer

Please remove my new page reviewer user right and my ability to use the AfC helper script. Wikipedia has failed me with confusing policies and a lack of help, guidance and assurance and I have failed Wikipedia with accepting articles which controversially do not deserve to be accepted and a misunderstanding of the unlogical notability policy. If I do decide to continue contributing I will only do so in vandalism work where following policies does not result in harm to content and policies do not contradict themselves and I have assurance that what I'm doing is correct. Eyebeller (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller, I agree that now is not the right time for NPP permissions, but I would encourage you to keep trying at AfC. If you're looking for help learning the ropes, consider asking me or another editor at WP:NPPSCHOOL. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks interesting, would you be able to enrol me in the school? Eyebeller (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller, here's the link, feel free to start at your own pace User:Rosguill/Eyebeller NPPSCHOOL _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 05:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk:Die Hard/Archive 2

You (correctly) closed it as delete in RFD, but the page never got deleted. HotdogPi 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

HotdogPi,  Done, there's some issues with how the XfD closer script closes discussions about Talk pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RE:Big Soto moved to draftspace

Hey! I've never received money for the creation of an article on Wikipedia and I don't know the artist personally. I originally wrote the article in Spanish, I saw that someone translated it into Portuguese and for that reason I decided that it was a good idea to translate it into English. I really don't see that there is any conflict of interest, so I ask you to help me correct the article if it seems convenient, or return it to where it was originally. Thanks! --Enmanuel (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Enmanuel, could you explain how you came by this photo? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I took it from the record label --Enmanuel (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Enmanuel, In that case you should not claim the image as your own work, and unless they have explicitly released the image as CC-licensed or free to use we cannot use it here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Did my edits pass your reviews?

I don't mean to be obtuse, but I simply don't know how to interpret the notifications I've received this year about You reviewing my edits. Did my edits fail your reviews? Thecurran (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thecurran, I'm guessing you're asking about new redirect review notifications? If a redirect is marked as reviewed without any RfD notice, then it's good to go. I usually try to also tag the page with a relevant description template (e.g. {{R from alternative name}} _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. Please pardon me for using up your time. Thecurran (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thecurran, no worries, happy new year! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
MRRaja001 ^(talk) 12:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2025 and tomorrow will be 2026. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2026. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 13:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

Hello Rosguill: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Abishe (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2025 and tomorrow will be 2026. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2026. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Rosguill: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CaptainGalaxy 00:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

Minor PoV matter

Would you please update change your close at WT:MOSCAPS#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms to say "Consensus against changing MOSCAPS to capitalize" instead of "Consensus against updating MOSCAPS to capitalize"? The RfC was faulty in using non-neutral wording like this to begin with, and the close should not compound the error, which prejudices future discussion as being about MoS being "outdated", rather than being neutral and non-activistic about language-change matters. Other than that, though, I found the close well-reasoned, and appreciate the thought and effort that went into it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, sure I'll make that change. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankee.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

NPP School Request

Happy New Year Rosguill,

I am interested in learning the skills for reviewing new pages. I have some experience in CSD (though limited in G11 and A7), PROD and AfD. I was wondering whether you may be interested in taking me as a student in the training programme? Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Roller26, sure, I'm willing to help. Based on your track record with various deletion procedures and editing in general, you're actually already at the level where I would consider giving you a month-long trial run with the reviewer permissions. With that in mind, are there specific aspects of new page reviewing that you think you need to study first, or would you like to go straight to a trial run? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you for the offer. If it suits you, I would like to go over some specifics of NPR before reviewing pages. I would like to cover the following topics: 1. Understanding issues when an article satisfies SNG but not GNG 2. Source Assessment Table 3. Copyvio 4. COI/PAID editors 5. Deletion Policy (PROD, BLPPROD) and alternatives (Merge, redirect, draftify, NPPdraft) 6. Tagging. Roller26 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Roller26, head on over to User:Rosguill/Roller26 NPPSCHOOL whenever you're ready. Read through the various SNGs listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines and then answer the first set of questions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Happy New Year! Rosguill :)

Tatupiplu'^talk 10:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

NPR

Hello Rosguill,

I am now confident that I can handle the NPR role, and this year I plan to contribute more by managing multiple divisions of Wikipedia.

Do you think I qualify?, or do you suggest me to join NPR school? - Tatupiplu'^talk 20:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Tatupiplu, I think that your track record is such that I would normally be comfortable conferring a month long trial run, and would expect you to qualify for full permissions afterward. However, as I've made decisions regarding giving you NPR permission before, I'm going to ask you to file a request at the request for permissions page, as I like avoid reviewing multiple requests from the same editor since I find it harder to be impartial in those situations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, I've requested permission a few days back. I'm waiting for someone to review it. Can you place your comments there so that it helps the other admin to make better decisions :)? - Tatupiplu'^talk 21:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Advice on an article title

Hello, I was hoping you might have a moment to answer a question regarding an article title. The article I am thinking about is Murder of Nagoya Abegg. It is about the murder of a couple (Abegg) in Nagoya (area). Original title was "Abegg Nagoya murder", but Murder of Nagoya Abegg seems most consistent with WP:AT, but should "Abegg" be replaced with "couple"? or would another title be best?

Thanks for any time you have to answer. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  20:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, based on the sources in the article, Nagoya Abegg Murder seems to be the English COMMONNAME. I wouldn't use "Murder of Nagoya Abegg", as that syntax to me suggests that Nagoya Abegg is the name of a person. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How do you curate new pages so quickly?

Hello. I was looking through your new page curation log and noticed a few pages curated per minute. How do you manage to read all the references and the article in such a short time? Eyebeller 22:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, those are redirects, which usually only take a few seconds to review. Actual articles take me considerably longer. Most days I do a full day's worth of redirects from the backlog (which has a shorter cutoff than the general backlog and thus needs to be patrolled separately), which is around 100-300 redirects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice that. I really do want to get into new page reviewing/AfC after completely leaving AfC for a few days (requesting removal from the reviewer list) just to mentally calm down as it does seem like a fun thing to do but I'm not sure where to start. I would like to get the new page reviewer right as well eventually as the articles which I did review, I found it quite enjoyable. I also apologise if you found the way in which I communicated with you to be rude. Any suggestions? Eyebeller 23:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, well if you're looking for training, we can start the course I set up for you at User:Rosguill/Eyebeller NPPSCHOOL. Alternatively, if you'd rather just build up your familiarity with the relevant skills on your own, I'd suggest signing up for AfC again, and participating in AfD discussions on a regular basis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, how about we do the course and then once you feel that I have a better understanding you can assign me the new page reviewer right? Eyebeller 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, sounds like a plan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, should I ping you after I do a part of the course? Note: I have already done the first part. Eyebeller 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, it's not necessary, I keep a pretty close watch on my watchlist. Feel free to ping me if I ever let something slip by for a few days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A question relating to the school since I'm not sure where to ask there. The sources, that don't count towards WP:GNG, are they allowed in the article, just don't count towards notability or should they be completely removed? Eyebeller 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, you can feel free to just carve out spaces at the bottom of a section to ask questions on the school page. But to keep this answer in the same place, yes such sources are absolutely allowed. Sources may fall short of contributing toward notability but can still hold up a given claim just fine. For example, trivial coverage in a reliable source may support a minor claim, and coverage in a non-independent source may be usable to provide non-controversial details or attributed opinions about a subject. As a new page reviewer, I'd even suggest that unreliable sources are preferable to no sources at all, and should just be tagged with or (or a top level {{unreliable sources}}) as appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for doing the school with me, I really like it and am learning a lot. Eyebeller 23:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I think you may have forgotten to check my NPP school. It’s been nearly two days since I last finished the task. Thanks. Eyebeller 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ping about the NPP school. Eyebeller 15:47, 12 January 2021 (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. MarioJump83! 03:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirect review for 🍜

An editor has asked for a redirect review of 🍜. Because you closed the redirect discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the redirect review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae. After I'd commented twice I thought it was best that another admin make an assessment. The verbosity and continual back-and-forth was unhelpful, so kudos for wading through it and for your succinct statement. Fences&Windows 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

NPP

Could you check my npp school? Thanks! Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Windows 94

Did You Just Delete The Page Windows 94 At 18:24 PM April 20 2020 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.71.229 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion, yes apparently. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ellen Alexander (actress) Tag Team

Thank you for replying to Domnipal. As you noted, it was also submitted by two other editors, who were also asked about conflict of interest, and did not answer. Domnipal says that they don't know who the other editors are. The most nearly good faith assumption is that Ms. Alexander's agency is paying each of them separately, which is meatpuppetry. At this point the Checkuser data has expired anyway. As you probably infer, I rejected the draft rather than declining it both because it had been previously rejected, and because Domnipal had insulted another reviewer, accusing User:GSS of bad faith. I don't like paid editors insulting volunteer editors.

I am inclined to guess that the tag team will continue and that the draft will be resubmitted by a fourth paid editor. The community can decide what to do next when the time comes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Star Gold

Thank you for notifying me about my mistakes. I deeply apologize for committing them. For my defense, I made the article based on Star Bharat, its sister article made about a year ago. Once again, I apologize if I violated any rules. Please do the needful, and kindly reply.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, the article at Star Gold was far more promotional than the current revision of Star Bharat, although the latter could benefit from additional citations as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you help by making necessary changes to make it less promotional, if it's notable--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, I'm willing to help if you can provide better sources, the ones that were cited aren't enough to hold up an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure I will give it by today.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15] [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Atlantis77177, with the exception of the barcindia source, this looks like PR. While I'm fairly confident that additional coverage exists out there, these sources aren't good material for writing an article about the TV channel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I move Draft:CalFile back to CalFile

Can I move Draft:CalFile back to CalFile? (you reviewed CalFile or Draft:CalFile) User:DGG claimed references to its government weblinks was insufficient. TurboTax has a 10 billion dollar conflict of interest in suppressing public knowledge of this free service. User:DGG claimed this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. ........0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, the article is written like an ad and is flatly unacceptable in its current form. DGG is also correct that government weblinks are not sufficient for establishing notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it ad-like? I added non-ca.gov references, to refute:

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.

It has quotes and citations from reliable, independent, third-party sources.

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, the entire thing is written like you're telling a story, the way you would in PR or in news coverage, rather than like an encyclopedia article. I'd recommend that you try looking up articles about other government services to get a better sense of how you should be writing articles on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill The quotes were listed in a readable order, which, besides references, were all that I added to the article. Is this better?....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, I'm sorry, the article is still a long ways from being ready and I don't have more time to help you. The article has indeed been rejected at this point, and I would suggest that you let the matter go. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to user-talkify a deleted page

I created a vanity page back in 2015 that was rightfully deleted by Boing! said Zebedee, but I see that Fastily deleted its talk page back in October 2019, but the article didn't exist back then, so I'd like to ask you to restore all of those revisions of that talk page (including the first one that was deleted in 2015) to User talk:JJPMaster/Joshua's number now that the article has been userfied to keep as a record of what not to do when creating an article. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, I can't seem to find the talk page that you're referring to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, I mean Talk:Joshua's number, the talk page of Joshua's number. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, there's two different versions, one that got deleted in 2015 and one in 2019, which do you want? Neither of them seem particularly noteworthy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, I want both, although I'm not sure that's possible; maybe through a histmerge? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Chaavu Kaburu Challaga page redirection

Hello! I just edit and create Wikipedia articles in my free time so i'm not quite sure how this stuff works, but this redirection never happened with any of the articles I created for upcoming movies.

A while ago, I created a page for upcoming Indian Telugu film Chaavu Kaburu Challaga. It had a trailer and all, and also had enough references. For a while, it was left alone, but then it got redirected to the production company's page and I can't find the article anymore. Just today, another teaser dropped (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxl1Jbh3lsM) and users who want to learn more about the film will click on the blue link only to be redirected. They can't even create a new article.

If you haven't redirected this page, please let me know how I can un-redirect, or delete the redirection, so the movie has a wikipedia page of its own. If you have done the redirection, please delete it. Thanks!

Intoxicatedmidnight (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Intoxicatedmidnight, I converted the article to a redirect as part of new page patrol. It was my assessment, and that of the reviewer who came across the article before me, that the existing coverage that was cited in the article was all routine pre-release coverage, which does not establish a subject's notability. Unless there is something particularly unusual about a film's production, there often isn't enough coverage to justify creating an article about a film until the film has been released and critics' reviews are published. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Allegations

Dear Rosguill, I've replied to your comment [20] but want to ask you to explain the "allegations" remark. Can you specify? I'm trying to understand why relevant criticism, substantiated with objective and verifiable evidence would qualify as "allegations", while the many unfounded personal attacks I'm targeted with are endorsed. Thanks. Saflieni (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, I think that JBL's comments in the ANI thread are a very concise explanation of the behavior that I'm talking about, and were hardly the only example of such behavior on your part. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not a very respectful response. You accuse me of some misdeeds and not discuss your evidence when I ask for it? You can say a lot of things about me, but unlike most others (look at Drmies' rants) I always supply plenty of evidence when I criticize someone, and I haven't done anything the other editors haven't. Saflieni (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, the incident identified by JBL, where you claimed that ArbCom did not decline to hear your case and that the page was already flooded with new insults against scholars and the usual evidenceless "comments" by Drmies is an example of allegations against other editors and misrepresentation of the case history.

The difference between your position and that of other editors is that up until the filing of the ANI report, you had been editing against consensus and dismissing other editors' concerns as failing to respect sources that you have identified as experts and/or a conspiracy against your point of view on the topic. When you find yourself on the losing end of a consensus, however small, the next step after local discussion has failed to change the consensus is to seek outside dispute resolution through DRN, RFC or 3O. Repeatedly insisting that all other involved editors are in the wrong is not going to get you anywhere. It is this behavior, if continued, that is going to end up getting you topic-banned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No offense, but these are misunderstandings. Please allow my side of the story:

1. you claimed that ArbCom did not decline to hear your case. That's not what I said but that's beside the point. What happened was part of a discussion that started with Drmies' insults about that ridiculous arbitration case and my Arbcom stunt. I responded with: my arbitration request was not "a stunt" but supported by 25 diffs; evidence of polarizing remarks and insults against scientists, mainly. HoC then said the request was declined, which suggested that the evidence I talked about was rejected, which is of course not true. There was also the fact that I had withdrawn, so it wasn't really declined, although I conceded: Some arbitrators who had missed the email voted to decline because they regarded the case - about fringe theories and advocacy - as a content issue. None of them has commented on the evidence. Then HoC kept going by showing the old notification instead of the amended one to suggest I was lying. That's why I asked HoC to be honest, and I added a link to the notification which says "withdrawn". However, on their Talk page, HoC suggested again that I lied, this time about the date of my email to the Committee. I complained about that too. At least they struck out that suggestion.
2. "...the page was already flooded with new insults against scholars and the usual evidenceless "comments" by Drmies" is an example of allegations against other editors and misrepresentation of the case history. I beg to differ. These are facts, not allegations. I complained twice about the off-topic rant by Drmies which contained insults, false allegations, uncivil language and lacked any evidence.[21], but my messages were kept on hold as "awaiting moderation" for a couple of days, which is why I lost confidence and withdrew my request. HoC's new attack against scholars is also a fact, not an allegation. HoC wrote this: Calling out people who criticize Rwanda's RPF as "revisionsts" and "genocide deniers", (aka "genocide blackmail") is very common. In Rever's case, it has already resulted in death threats and in stories such as "How Judi Rever is a cynical genocide revisionist, intent on murdering victims a second time." [22] What HoC says here is that scholars who qualify Rever's fringe theories as a form of denial are somehow part of an international scheme to attack Rever on behalf of the Rwandan government. I'm not sure how I, by referring to this horrible accusation, end up as the bad person.
3. you had been editing against consensus and dismissing other editors' concerns as failing to respect sources that you have identified as experts and/or a conspiracy against your point of view on the topic. Actually I did not edit since my block, except for a couple of attempts to save edits from deletion. I can't be punished twice for what happened earlier. About the alleged consensus, WP:CON says: consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) and: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I believe this gave me the right to insist on editing according to NPOV and RS guidelines, on an accurate representation of the credible sources, and to criticize undue weight given to non RS and non experts over scholarly literature. In a nutshell, it's the Eiffeltower in Madrid analogy. If you read the debates, over the past couple of weeks, you'll see that my focus was on the literature and on defending scholars. Btw, they listed the Eiffeltower analogy as an "attack". Compare this to their attacks against scholars. Something is off here, don't you think? Saflieni (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

   Saflieni, Actually I did not edit since my block, except for a couple of attempts to save edits from deletion. Those edits included edit warring, and were a justifiable reason to bring the dispute back to ANI given the extent of the dispute up until that point. I've read through your arguments multiple times and don't need them rehashed on my talk page.

   Wikipedia arguments are like quicksand: the more you fight, the more you end up stuck. You don't need to respond to every allegation made at ANI, you just need to indicate that you are willing to comply with conflict resolution processes (in this case, either RfC or DRN) without editing disruptively or making a big fuss. For your own sake, I'd highly recommend not responding to anything else HoC writes in the ANI thread. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ANIs are pointless if editors ignore the defence of the accused [23], misinterpret the evidence, and forget to apply the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I don't appreciate the additional false accusation of edit warring when I've explained that my edits have been consistently deleted/reverted from day one and that the other two editors teamed up to avoid problems with 3RR [24][25][26]. I don't understand why everyone seems to be so trigger happy to condemn and block others without getting the facts straight. That's as rude as it is unjust.Saflieni (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

COI and associated connected contributor

Are you new to this, or have you just not been challenged to do things the way the documentation states before? {{COI}} states that {{Connected contributor}} should be added to the talk page. The fact that you simply suspect a CoI is also problematic and so the template is probably not correct to be placed at this point. I'll let you correct your errors before I see advice from the larger community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, my understanding is that if there was simply a suspicion of COI, tagging the article and following up with them on talk pages was standard, and that connected contributor templates should only be used once there has been an admission of COI. I think that given their very narrow interest in Maveryx over 10 years of editing indicates that a COI is highly likely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspicion is not the standard listed in the template. We should be doing so only if it is biased or has serious problems. You also have not opened a discussion to explain "non-neutral about the article" as is requested. So I am no closer now to knowing what the problem with the article is as a result of the other editor's involvement. If you think a CoI is highly like, then open a discussion but do not place a tag of shame on the article. Could the problems be resolved with simple edits? You've made your point, but I think leaving the template is disruptive at this point since it's a suspicion (it's a good suspicion, but is undeclared and so still just a suspicion). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I followed up with additional comments at the article in question while you were writing this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review my article

Hello,

I have recently published a draft article for review on torus fractures - the most common fractures in children. It is part of a collaboration project with a professor. I would like to kindly ask if it would be possible to check it out yourself for any flaws? if not, could you publish it and make it live?

Thanks, Apaul291003 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Apaul291003, it looks good for the most part. My main reservation at this point is that it's not clear to me as a non-expert whether the common name of this type of fracture is. My impression from reading the article is that it should probably be called "Torus fracture", and that "buckle fracture" is just an alternative name for it. Is my understanding correct? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill Both terms can be used interchangeably and really depends on the person - that's why. Medics call it'torus' but common people might call it 'buckle'. Thanks

Apaul291003 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)