Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Userright duration

Hello Rosguill, just wanted to ask if this was intended. 2 weeks seems way too short to grant any editor (especially one that has been around 9 years) and makes it necessary to come back to PERM for an extension almost ASAP. --qedk (t 心 c) 14:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, I've generally found even 2-week trial runs useful; even with the short time period, they create enough of a track record of reviews that can be assessed. I'm not particularly tied to it as a practice, so if you feel strongly I can stick to conferring longer trials. signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It was just a thought. If you think it helps, feel free to use your discretion. Imo, most of them aren't sensitive userrights and users without any history of abusing privileges (and 9 years is a lot!), so being a bit more liberal with the rights (and/or their duration) couldn't hurt. That's all! --qedk (t 心 c) 20:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Syed Muhammad Miyan Deobandi

Hii dear, I just noticed that long back in August 2019 you've had added a POV tag on Syed Muhammad Miyan Deobandi without leaving any related details on my talk page. Could you please let me know what things I need to fix in the article? Thanks - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, in the revision from when I tagged it there's a few issues, such as calling him "outstanding" in the lead, as well as broadly referring to the listed works as notable despite not all of them having sources or a blue-link. That having been said, these issues have been addressed so I have no issue with removing the tag now. signed, Rosguill talk 00:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill - I'm more working on the page, to fix other such issues. I remember when I had created this page; I had not enough knowledge about Wikipedia.. anyways, thank you for the explanation - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Luv is Rage" Mixtape - Lil Uzi Vert

I created a page for Lil Uzi Vert's mixtape "Luv is Rage," but it was removed as it was said to not be constructive. When a user would type in "Luv is Rage" prior to my changes on Wikipedia, it would take them to the page listing all of Lil Uzi Vert's discography. There was never a page for "Luv is Rage," but due to its widespread popularity, I created it. Let me know what I can do to ensure that it stays up.Zachlbeer (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Zachlbeer, the subjects of Wikipedia articles are expected to meet the general notability guideline or WP:NALBUM. The test is not popularity: we need to have a substantial amount of coverage in reliable sources before we can write an article, because the article needs to be based on such sources. If you want to challenge this formally, we can start an articles for deletion discussion, but unless you can find a couple of reviews in reliable sources (this list can help), the discussion is almost certainly going to end in the article getting redirected. signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I found reviews on sites such as those mentioned in the page you referred me to, but what would I do with those. How would I integrate it in order to qualify the article? Thank you in advance. Zachlbeer (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Zachlbeer, find a claim or two in each source that seems relevant, add to the Wikipedia article, and cite the source. See this page if you need more help. Be advised that to contribute toward the notability guidelines, coverage is expected to be significant. Press releases that are just hyping an album don't count for much. signed, Rosguill talk 05:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Tone and Copyvio on History of Asmara

Hey Rosguill! Thanks for your notes and edits on the new 'History of Asmara'. You're right about the tonal issues as the work on the article started in a different context (for university), but we decided to 'open-source' our own work on Wikipedia, rather than trying to publish it. I'll work on it and hopefully the Wikipedia community can help fix some of the tonal issues.

To be clear, the words are entirely our own, with the exception of those areas that have been properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanNeysan (talk • contribs) 09:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Re copyvio. I understand the concern, but there are no issues. The article is sourced with references in detail. The source of the text is, as I say, our own work that we decided to contribute to Wikipedia, rather than leaving it to dust on a shelf somewhere. Let me know if there is some way that this should be marked up? The reference and bibliographic references are certainly there. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanNeysan (talk • contribs) 09:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

JanNeysan, if it's never been published anywhere then there's no need for further disclosures or releases. If it has been published, even if just on a university website, then you can find more information at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. I hope you'll forgive my overabundance of caution when first reviewing the article: it's rather unusual for an account with almost no edit history to suddenly drop a giant expansion of an article that looks like it was pulled from a history textbook, and we've had some ongoing problems with editors acting in bad faith on articles about the African colonies of fascist Italy.
The only thing left for me to point out is that Wikipedia has a policy against sharing accounts. Since you've been using the first person plural to refer to yourself, (and from noting the similarities between your username the authors of the publication you've disclosed on your user page), you should shift to having only one person use this account. If you want to change your username as a result, you can do so here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect possibly overriding consensus?

(I asked a non-administrator this question previously and I figured you'd be able to help me out. Regardless, this is the message.) Hello Rosguill. I was monitoring the older pages in the WP:AFC/R queue and created the Kung flu redirect to Kung-Flu. After checking back on the creations that I had made, I noticed that my redirect that I had just created had already received 1.3k pageviews. I did not notice that the page had been previously deleted, but I could not find an AfD or RfD anywhere logging it. I just assumed that the presence of a Kung-Flu disambiguation page implied that it was judged to be notable, but perhaps it was previously deleted under the name "Kung flu"? Should I not have created the redirects? Hopefully you are able to put my curiosity at ease, as I don't want the creation of those pages to overrule a previous decision made on the existence of the redirects and disambiguation page. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

[1] This is the pageview data. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Utopes, from the logs, it looks like a redirect was created on Jan 27, then R3 speedy-deleted on March 24. It seems like the R3 deletion was unilateral action by an admin, as I don't see any indication of the page having been tagged in its deleted history. That having been said, the target of the deleted version was our article on Coronavirus disease 2019, and there was a minor edit war between editors who thought that this was a fake name that we should avoid giving legitimacy and editors that felt that it had received enough use. Regardless, I think it's fair game to recreate it pointing at the dab page. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I should add that the disambiguation page itself was created as a redirect and then an anonymous user converted it into a disambiguation page shortly after its creation. I'm not sure of all the details myself, so I'll just leave that to somebody who does. Thanks for the information. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
To fill you in, it turns out that the disambiguation page WAS overriding an consensus, as DAB page and the accompanying redirects were all recently deleted in an AfD. And, to add onto that as well, I was accused of permitting "racist garbage" in the AfD because I marked the disambiguation page as patrolled and created additional redirects there, even if I was only approving redirects with spelling variations to target an existing DAB page. Kind of sucks, but hey, there isn't anything I can do about it anymore. (Now my list of my deleted pages is tainted with three counts of "kung flu"... I feel like I'll have to explain to people how I'm not racist if they see that...) Utopes (talk / cont) 17:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Utopes, I'm sorry about that...unfortunately the political discourse of the moment means that there's a fair amount of overlap between "labels that are racist" and "labels that are plausible search terms". signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Like I said, I wasn't too concerned about the outcome of the AfD either way, and I completely understand why the disambiguation page is racist and why it was deleted. It's just that I created valid redirects to the DAB page that were deleted by result that are going to stick with me on my list of deleted pages. It doesn't bother me too much, because I know the circumstances around its creation, and am indifferent about the outcome of the AfD. However, I feel like my "reputation" has been tarnished with a history of creating a racist redirect. It's in the past, and I'm not asking you to do anything about it. I'm just generally frustrated in myself for creating the redirects now, so I hope you don't mind the fact that I've been venting to you. Without context, my deleted page history looks pretty bad. That's all. Have a good day, Utopes (talk / cont) 18:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi

Hii, this article was recently deleted through AfD by an editor who is subject to an ongoing discussion in the ANI. I have added a number of third party resources on the draft article and then moved it to mainspace, being an AfC reviewer, I deem that the third party resources clearly indicate that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR. Could you see and re-review the article and suggest issues, if any. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I think that notability-wise it looks fine. There's a few minor issues in addition to that, so I'm tagging with {{copy edit}}
  • there's some runaway italics in the lead, and you've also used italics for quotes, which is not the preferred style per MOS:ITALQUOTE
  • Some of the phrases come off as non-neutral, e.g. a celebrated freedom fighter of Indian Independence Movement. and to guide people with right information regarding Hajj.. In the case of the former, I'm aware that that is a phrase used directly in the source, but it's important to recognize that we need to be more cautious around political labels (a better phrasing would be is known for his participation in the Indian Independence movement. As for the second example, I think that "right" is a poor word choice, as it comes off as referring to the capital-T Truth. A better phrasing would be to help provide accurate information about Hajj. It may also benefit from being more specific, what kind of Hajj-related information is being provided?
  • Finally, there's an external link in the body of the text. External links should only go in an External links section, or in the infobox.
Once these issues have been addressed, feel free to remove the copy-edit tag yourself. signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: - thanks. I'll fix these issues and might disturb you again. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ghost of You / Ghost Of You

Good day. Is there a reason why "Ghost of You" and "Ghost Of You" were relisted, yet closed without additional commentary or a second relist? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677, I generally don't put RfDs up for a second relist after the first has failed to elicit responses unless there's a specific circumstance that I think makes further discussion likely or necessary. signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Freedom of religion in Norway

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Freedom of religion in Norway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Freedom of religion in Norway

The article Freedom of religion in Norway you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Freedom of religion in Norway for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that we were both patrolling the back end of the new page queue?

I think we might have been interfering with each other's reviews. I'll just move to the beginning; this message doesn't require any action on your part. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Utopes, for better or for worse, I realized this a bit before you sent this message and got up to take a lunch break. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

statistik # unreviewed articles

Moin, was bedeutet das? EnTerbury (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

EnTerbury, das ist die Zahl den neu geschriebenen Artikeln, die schon nicht überprüft sind. Ihr könnt mehr lesen bei WP:NPP. signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah wow, das muss man in der Tat unter Kontorlle behalten. Danke und cheers! EnTerbury (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Egypt question

RASAM, if you want to contact me, the place to do that is here on my talk page, not on my user page. That having been said, I'm sorry to say that I don't have a clue how to go about finding more about Egyptian alcohol consumption rates. signed, Rosguill talk 06:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Freedom of religion in Norway

The article Freedom of religion in Norway you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Freedom of religion in Norway for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

R from longer title

Hello, I saw you just patrolled my redirects, such as ‪Heath Mitchell Quinn‬, and thought that this and some other ones of them could maybe be tagged with {{R from longer title}}. Can it be used based on the name of the section? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4, yes it can. I honestly don't think that redirect categories are super important, so I'm sometimes a bit inconsistent about placing them. There's definitely nothing wrong with adding it, however. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Fan-pov tag on "Harumi Sato"

Hello! First of all I would like to thank you for reviewing the article about "Harumi Sato". On the talk page, you mentioned that:

"Information such the subject's height and meticulous listing of advertisements that she's been in is unencyclopedic and should be removed unless independent sources put a large emphasis on these attributes"

Since Harumi Sato is mainly known as a model, aspects such as her height and her appearances in commercials are pivotal in news articles about her. Furthermore, she is part of a model duo that was formed simply because of both members' height, so I think this information is crucial about her. Here are some independent sources that focus on her height as well as her appearances in commercials:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

These are just a few examples to give you an overview. Since this information is so relevant in her profession and omnipresent in the news articles about her, I think it is appropriate to mention it in her Wikipedia article.

Kyugium (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll defer to your judgment, you're free to remove the tag. I'm concerned that in general any given source has very little information about the subject, but understand that this is the standard for journalism about J-pop stars. signed, Rosguill talk 07:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "E-girls楓＆佐藤晴美「CanCam」表紙で"異例"の初共演". modelpress. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  2. ^ "E-girlsの4人が「CanCam」「JJ」「Ray」の専属モデルに抜擢". modelpress. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  3. ^ "E-girlsの"モデル代表"4人が恋愛トーク　女子会さながらの盛り上がり　モデルプレスインタビュー". modelpress. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  4. ^ "女性向け新イメージキャラクターに「Ｅ-ｇｉｒｌｓ」を起用". atpress. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  5. ^ "新体制・E-girls、CMでも「新生感出せた」". Oricon. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  6. ^ "E-girlsが妄想デート企画で熱弁「腕を組んで星を観たい」". natalie. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  7. ^ "E-girls佐藤晴美、"上半身裸×ジャケット"の大胆ショット「エロかっこいい…」". Oricon. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
  8. ^ "タピオカのダンス愛して！ E―girlsがCM出演". Oricon. Retrieved 4 April 2020.
Thank you very much. I completely understand your concern and I agree that finding creditable sources about such entertainment topics is not an easy task. At the moment I try to orientate myself by the Japanese Wikipedia articles about the given topics and see if they cite any creditable sources for their information. If not, I try to do my own research on independent and creditable Japanese news portals.
Thank you again for your valuable input and I hope you stay safe and healthy. Kyugium (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Anybody you know? Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, it looks like it's gonna be a long April. signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Got the other one. El_C 20:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
They're going to run out of letters to change at this rate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I can semiprotect your talk page for a while if you like — let me know. El_C 21:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
El C, I did that myself for April 1st. Given how this has been going so far, I think I'd actually rather let them come here, it makes it easier for me to find and block them. If it gets to be too much I'll go ahead and apply it myself. signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize you're an admin. Of course, do as you see fit. El_C 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with page move

Hi, I was wondering if you could do a Round-robin move from Thanh Hưng, Điện Biên to Thanh Hưng for me. The reason for moving is because there's only one village name "Thanh Hưng" in Vietnam now, so no more disambiguation is needed. Thank you very much ChanComThemPho (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

ChanComThemPho,  Done signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer rights justified?

Hi, my article Hedgehog Security recently tagged with CSD by Tatupiplu even though it has several WP:RS which make it ineligible for CSD. After checking, the user's talk page archivehere, I saw several such instances. I think the user is not even reading the articles before tagging for deletion. Altutmir (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Updated: The article has been nominated for AfD by another user which is justifiable though. Altutmir (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    Altutmir, yeah, that wasn't a good CSD tag. Still, the majority of articles listed in Tatupiplu's log have been deleted and their contributions at AfD seem reasonable and more than just bandwagon votes, so I'm still of the impression that giving them a trial run is appropriate. Mistakes are pretty much inevitable for new reviewers, and A7 is one of the trickiest protocols to get an intuition for. If they're still making mistakes like this a month from now, that would be cause to not extend permissions further. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Rosguill, I was wondering (if you have the time and inclination) whether you would weigh in on this AfD. I'm new to proposing AfD, and the votes on it don't seem to make sense. I am of course happy for the AfD to go either way, but preferably on a sound basis. I thought it would help to get the opinion of someone more senior like you, who has a better sense of what has a place on Wikipedia. No worries at all if you're busy. (and thank you in advance if you're not!) Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Kohlrabi Pickle, even without reading through the arguments in detail, between the sock-strikes and inappropriate all-caps "KEEP" votes, it looks like this page is being brigaded by people who either fans of the subject or have an actual COI. I'll try to take a closer look sometime this weekend. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, thank you, much appreciated. Hope you're having a good weekend. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill just a gentle reminder, if you are still willing, to have a look. Many thanks. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

IP Page Creations

Hi Rosguill, I wanted to draw your attention to this:

All the 9 pages are about South Korean actors. They are cited with South Korean sources. How should one deal with this?

More found -

These 13, also South Korean actors, were moved to the mainspace from Drafts by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AkaneNel

Stay COVID safe. Csgir (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Csgir, that is a bit concerning. I would start by placing a COI notice on AkaneNel's talk page (writing a message may work better than just using the template given that this isn't just one article), and try to assess the articles for notability. While doing a proper BEFORE may be too difficult, Google translate should work ok on the provided sources, and you can assess whether it seems like NACTOR has been met to inform whether it likely meets notability guidelines or not. From glancing through the sources of one of the articles listed here, it seems like the sources themselves are reliable, but the coverage is extremely minimal. You don't need to speak Korean to see that this and this are trivial coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 16:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Interstellarity (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you see my second email? Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Interstellarity just replied. I keep pretty close tabs on my Wikipedia email, so notifications like this are not necessary if you ever email me in the future. signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have replied to your second email. Interstellarity (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That paragraph at WP:COSTLY

Hi, just a note that I've removed a paragraph from WP:COSTLY that I now see was added by you a few months ago [2]. It makes perfectly valid general points, but they apply pretty much everywhere and I think making them in this particular essay detracts from its crisp focus on redirects. Still, they do belong somewhere, but I don't know why (I won't be surprised if there's a relevant essay somewhere in this category). – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala, I didn't see any existing essays with an overlapping scope, so I went ahead and moved the content to Wikipedia:Clean up after your discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That's a good solution. – Uanfala (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC input requested

In January, you closed this RfC opting for a version that was the status quo ante . Now several editors (including one who participated in the RfC) are changing it, tagging that version and claiming there's no consensus for it. If you could provide some input and/or clarifications that would be good. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Mphephu III

As requested, I have provided justification for my redirect page of Mphephu III for Patrick Mphephu on the redirects for discussion page. I hope this contribution proves to be enough to bring about consensus. If not, I will certainly dig further into detail. Best regards, AvRand (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Main page

This edit is puzzling. It says that the redirect should be kept, but the same edit removes the redirect that we're supposedly keeping. So if someone types Talk:Main page, forgetting the capital P, they get an arcane notice of the page's history instead of what they really wanted, Talk:Main Page. Perhaps your notice and the redirect could both be kept, but I'm not sure they wouldn't interfere with each other. Art LaPella (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Art LaPella, unfortunately it's one or the other for the notice or the redirect as far as I'm aware. My understanding was that there was an implicit consensus to put the notices up where applicable, but I acknowledge that this isn't ideal. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

John P. Jackson

Hello Rosguill. I noticed that you recently deleted the article I started on John P. Jackson. I spent a lot of time researching and writing this article and disagree with this decision. There was no doubt in my mind that Dr. Jackson meets Wikipedia's "Notability" criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) His work has been covered in the New York Times as well as many other prominent news sources. I would ask you to please consider reinstating this article.

Thank you, Jonbrach (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonbrach, I actually did not delete the page, I merely converted it to a redirect. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it actually is relevant because this means that you are allowed to reverse my action yourself by going to John P. Jackson's edit history (an actual deletion can only be reversed by an admin, and there's usually a bit more red tape involved).
That having been said, before you decide to do so, I would suggest that you read through WP:PAGEDECIDE, which is part of our notability guidelines. There's a pretty longstanding practice not to create articles about individuals that are exclusively covered in the context of an organization/project/etc. that already has an article on Wikipedia. In this case, I wasn't able to find any coverage of Jackson that wasn't about the Shroud of Turin Research Project, so it seemed appropriate to convert the article to a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, thank you for that very thorough and helpful explanation. I still personally feel that Dr. Jackson deserves his own Wikipedia article, but will follow the guidelines you mentioned. Thanks again. Jonbrach (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A question for CSD log

Is it fair to remove the articles from my CSD log that didn't qualify for Speedy Deletion? GargAvinash (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GargAvinash, I would suggest not doing that. While technically it is a subpage of your user page and you can thus do as you see fit, the purpose of a CSD log is to track your nominations, whether or not they were successful, and thus provide a track record of your activity in that field. Editors will likely interpret any edits to your log as an attempt to doctor your record and a sign of untrustworthiness. signed, Rosguill talk 23:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand this but User:Tatupiplu is editing her CSD log frequently that's why I asked you. Thanks. GargAvinash (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

GargAvinash, thank you for bringing this to my attention. It revealed some additional shady behavior as well. I have addressed this issue. signed, Rosguill talk 06:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this the correct way to remove WP:CSD notices?

I have found Mamak railway station and Cebeci railway station unsuitable and tagged a WP:CSD WP:A1. But an editor User:Phil Bridger is removing the tag and saying this User talk:Amkgp#Cebeci railway station and Mamak railway station, which is quite rude in nature. Is this the correct way to remove WP:CSD notices?

Previously, User:Phil Bridger did similar thing User talk:Amkgp#Accueil, but being new I did not oppose? You can verify from page history, he reverts speedy deletion notice without proper reason. Please help. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have been helped and advised regarding this issue by an Administrator. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing

Sometimes I misclick. Thank you for your vigilance. DS (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

RfD

Hello Rosguill. You were the closing administrator for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Lists of ecoregions in the United States (disambiguation). I would like to contest the close please. Although you assessed the close as no consensus, I believe that you gave undue weight to the final keep !vote. My opinion as nominator was clearly delete. user:Hut 8.5 who was the administrator who declined Speedy made a comment that didn't definitively !vote but leaned keep. user:Narky Blert !voted delete with a rationale. I don't wish to challenge those users whose comments are thoughful and valid. I do wish, however, to challenge user:Thryduulf's rationale in this particular instance. They said: ""(disambiguation)" redirects serve to facilitate reliable links to disambiguation and disambiguation-like pages for any reason (not just DPL bot), including use by people who are looking for an article they know is not the primary topic for the given title but do not know the name of" (my italics). Applying this logic to this particular case is entirely fallacious. People who are looking for an article they know is not the primary topic for Lists of ecoregions in the United States need a redirect back to that article? What possible article might there be that could otherwise be called "Lists of ecoregions in the United States" but is not the primary topic "Lists of ecoregions in the United States". This doesn't make sense: titles held by list of lists articles are not ambiguous and we do not need (disambiguation) redirects to all, or any, list of lists articles. I'm asking for this review in order to avoid setting this precedent. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: the part of my comment you quote is a non-exhaustive list of reasons why "(disambiguation)" redirects are not solely for the benefit of DPL bot. My whole comment was endorsing Hut8.5's comment that this is a redirect to a page that performs a disambiguation like function. "(disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages and to pages that perform disambiguation like functions are always going to be harmless at absolute worst. As the discussion contained two rationales for deletion and two comments explicitly rejecting those rationales (which the delete voters chose not to comment on), and no further comments despite a relisting, then I cannot see any possible closure other than no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I understand, but my suggestion to the closer is that undue weight may have been given to your reasoning that does reflect a general guideline but simply does not apply in this particular case. "Lists of ecoregions in the United States" (plural) is plainly not ambiguous; "List of ecoregions in the United States" (singular) is, but that's not what we're discussing. The page does not contain a disambiguation-like list of things that might otherwise be called "Lists of...". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
That argument was explicitly rejected by Hut 8.5 and by me: if the title was "list" not "lists" with no change of content it would unambiguously be a disambiguation page. Claiming that changing the title but such a small amount makes it not a disambiguation page may be technically correct by a very strict reading of the disambiguation guidelines, but to claim it doesn't perform a "disambiguation like function" is clearly fallacious. Even if you do discount my !vote in the discussion (and I disagree that this would be appropriate) I still cannot see a consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I was not aware of Thryduulf's post in that discussion against my argument until today. If I had seen it, I would have attempted a rebuttal. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Had you attempted a rebuttal of my argument I would likely have responded to that (obviously depends on what exactly you wrote), but discussions can only be closed based on the arguments that are actually presented. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Audi alteram partem. I am very seriously unimpressed by the fact that you did not notify me of this post of yours here either. I have other things to do than to follow discussions in which I might be disparaged without the courtesy of being invited to reply. Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: I'm not seeing any comments in this discussion that disparage anybody? I don't normally ping people to ongoing discussions they are actively participating in (unless needed for context) - I've never understood why it would be needed? If you are interested in following any replies to your comment you would be watching it and wouldn't need a ping. If you weren't interested in following it then a ping would be disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Shhhnotsoloud I would disagree with the assessment that I gave undue weight to Thryduulf's vote, as I think that Hut8.5's contribution to the discussion also deserves a fair amount of weight. While Hut declined to make an actual vote, their argumentation was a reasonable rebuttal against the arguments made in the nominating statement. Neither do I think that Thryduulf's argument can just be dismissed out of hand; anecdotally, I think that I only ever close discussions with this pattern of voting as "delete" when the keep comment is patently absurd (and usually contributed by an editor who has a long track record of nonsensical or poorly considered votes). I think that no consensus was the appropriate way to close the discussion. That having been said, as it was closed as merely "no consensus", if you feel strongly about the matter and think that it should receive additional consideration from editors, I have no issue with you renominating the redirect for RfD again. signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks Rosguill. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Even in His Youth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Even in His Youth 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/Even in His Youth 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. Whpq (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Amkgp

Are you sure that it was a good idea to give this editor the "new page reviewer" right permanently? It was pretty clear while that editor had the temporary right that it, and other permissions, were not being used in a competent manner, and it has become even more clear since. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Amkgp has been fairly good about the articles actually marked as reviewed, and their deletion tag log looks ok to me. I saw the article that Praxidicae warned them about today, which was tagged as G12 and G2. The G12 was a mistake and is a mark against them, but G2 was defensible, as the article was 50% article wizard boilerplate. Were there other specific instances that you think are cause for concern? signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear, Phil Bridger and Rosguill. I will not commit any mistakes further, I will cross-check before any action and have started following WP:CSD and WP:AFC guidelines STRICTLY. The WP:CSD and WP:AFC pages are always open in new window from now. I will refer them before any action regarding WP:NPP. Its a PROMISE. My intention is to help and contribute, not to make the community work harder due to me. I would request to pardon for my wrong actions. I am slowing down my rate too. I will follow the motto "Rather than speed, quality and depth". I am very sorry for the 'extra' problems. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
You have replied like that every time that anyone has pointed out your mistakes, but you continue to make them. One of the many examples is in your post above, where you only needed a very basic understanding of policy to realise that you were wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) There are loads. I'm afraid that I don't have time to list them. I thought you should have checked them out before granting this right. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, I looked through the review log and the deletion tag log and didn't note a particularly high rate of mistakes. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I've actually been considering requesting their rights be revoked - they're making a lot of really silly mistakes that no AFC or NPP should make. I've pointed out on their talk page, as have others and there's a fairly lengthy discussion on Primefac's talk page. They are consistently tagging things incorrectly (like "no context" on drafts that clearly have a context, g12 on non copyvios etc...) and their comments at many of their declines make absolutely no sense. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill I'm with Phil Bridger here. These two are among some of their more egregious mistakes, this more recent g12 tag is another. I could list off several more, I'm not trying to scare them off but I don't think an editor who has only been active on the project for about 3 weeks and doesn't understand our csd criteria should be granted such perms at this point. Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, I agree that those edits cause for concern. That having been said, their positive-review record at NPP seems to be fairly good, as is their AfD record. I understand the argument for caution with permissions in general given the lack of care with CSD, but given the decent track record in the other parts of NPP, I'm wondering if the following compromise would be amenable:
  • Amkgp promises to refrain from any CSD tagging for two months, watchlisting articles that they come across that they wold have normally nominated for speedy deletion (not merely nominating them for PROD or AfD)
  • At the end of two months, Amkgp is allowed to use CSD tags again but only on the condition that they do so through Twinkle, with a CSD log turned on.
  • Any further careless CSD tagging will be met more severely signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate your responses but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. It's not that they are tagging articles, it's that they simply do not seem to understand the criteria, which I'd say is more problematic than anything for NPP. They should have adequate experience in csd tagging and deletion discussions (or AFC) before being granted one of our more important rights, not after. I guess I don't see the value in having to clean up after someone with these rights, I personally think that NPP/AFC requires some level of autonomy and shouldn't require constant hand holding or cleanup. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
(after more edit conflicts)I'm afraid that I can't accept that someone who just a few days ago was edit-warring over obviously incorrect speedy deletion tags should have the right to mark other people's work.[3][4] Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That's fair. At this point given the valid causes for concern I'm going to go ahead and remove the permissions. Amkgp, I would suggest taking a break from patrolling-related work for a week or two, then see if one of the editors listed at WP:NPPSCHOOL is willing to take you on as a student. If no one is available, I think that with 6 months–1 year of solid editing in other parts of Wikipedia you can consider reapplying. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to defend my decisions pointed by Praxidicae. First,Draft:Hoaxed (2019 film) I found that the article can be improved ,as I belive since its a draft the creator can certainly improve rather than going to mainspace and getting maintanence tags, deletion notices. My motive was to make the article better, even I provided help by commenting "see the writing style and structure of a documentaries like The Great Hack and Human Flow". I did not comment on other things because content should be available as it was already released a year. I don't think the user ever tried. The result it was again declined with more faults see [5]. It was never improved and moved to main-space and now its under 'deletion discussion' see [6]. Secondly. Draft:Bryan_M._Ferguson, there were only a definition of person with only a list of works. I commented to improve because its a bio, and can have many things. The draft was declined again see [[7]]. I am writing Amkgp (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Amkgp I'm sorry but your response here only demonstrates that you haven't a clue what you're doing at AFC or with NPP. Praxidicae (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will not edit a single. I am putting a request at NPPSCHOOL and I will not do any NPP work till I complete the training. Only, request don't revoke. It's very hard to get a access. Rosguill. Amkgp (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Amkgp, no, given the present concerns I am afraid I have no choice but to revoke the permissions and in fact have already done so. Rest assured that your ability to get them back will only be as difficult as proving that you have learned from your past mistakes, which would be a necessary precondition for returning to patrol work regardless. signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPRSCHOOL training request

Hi, Rosguill can you enroll me under your mentor-ship for training, as many from the community believes I require training to properly execute the NPP work. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but I'm currently at capacity for students. Also, with all due respect I think you should have realized that if I was willing to take you on as a student right now, I would have volunteered to do so in the above discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I am requesting others if anyone willing to admit. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Stanley Witten

Hi Rosguill! I got a notification that you reviewed my article for Stan Witten (thanks for doing that!) but the article it redirects to has not been reviewed yet. Would you be willing to take a look at it? Other users have added a talk page and new categories for the article, but I don't think it's been officially "reviewed" yet. Thanks for all your work. Sincerely, Tracklan2 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tracklan2, the article is currently in the new article queue and should be reviewed within the next 2 months or so. The redirect queue has a shorter cutoff due to the volume of redirects that get created, so the redirects generally get reviewed first. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for explaining--I've always wondered how that process works. BestTracklan2 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tracklan2 no problem. If you ever want more information about new page reviewing, see WP:NPP. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Review

Hey there. I noticed you reviewed a couple redirects I created. Would you be able to explain to me what this means, please? Thank you. GOLDIEM J (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J, it's part of new pages patrol, what it means is that I've checked the redirect and verified that it's useful or at least not harmful. Bad redirects either get fixed, marked for speedy deletion, or sent to RFD signed, Rosguill talk 07:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining it to me. Have a good day xx GOLDIEM J (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Патрулирование

Здравствуйте. Внёс правки в данную статью - Sergei Makhlai. С 2018-2019 года ничего не обновлялось, хотя о персоне говорят все СМИ в связи с его преступлениями. Добавил раздел "Уголовные расследования" и актуализировал информацию в других разделах. К каждому предложению проставил сноски на авторитетные источники. Можете посмотреть ? Спасибо. 95.153.128.30 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Я быстро взглянул статью––мне выглядит неплохо. Каждую примечанию не признал, а у важной информацый удовлетворительные примечаные есть, и английская проза текста подходит. Есть что-нибудь что вы бы хотели проверять в частности? signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Большое спасибо, что просмотрели статью. Старался использовать только авторитетные истчники. Могли бы отпатрулировать статью? Многим не нравится критика и могут откатить правки. Спасибо! 95.153.131.1 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Я добавил статью в моем списке наблюдении, ещё делать теперь нет. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
А отпатрулировать статью возможно ? 95.153.131.1 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
патрулировать–только для новую статью, даже большие правки не изменить патрулирований статус стати.
(Not 100% sure we're understanding each other at this point, so I'll repeat in English in case I missed something in Russian: patrolling is just for new articles, even large edits don't change an article's patrol status so there's nothing left to do here) signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Я Вас понял. Большое спасибо, что добавили статью в список для наблюдения. 95.153.131.1 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RoadTrip

I'd been looking at this article for a while, and was considering taking it to AfD... I didn't realise it had been previously deleted. I'm pretty certain this article is maintained almost entirely by the band members themselves... Andy Fowler is the group's leader and RoadTrip TV is the group's YouTube channel, which would explain the editor "RTTVFowler", and "Flashing Lights" is one of the band's songs. I've never been able to find any RS coverage of the group. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120, hm, I hadn't even noticed the COI issues. As for the prior deletion, the current revision is not an exact copy, but it also doesn't resolve any of the issues raised at AfD. Ironically, at a glance the creator of the originally deleted article doesn't seem to have any obvious COI. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. I didn't realise they had edited my user page. --MrClog (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

new article about music producer "Hogland"

Hello, firstly, I am not entirely sure that this is the correct place wo write this, so please excuse me if that is the case. Thank you for your comment on the article about the music producer Hogland, I checked out the notability guide lines again and I have some sources here:

https://www.dance-charts.de/2018120910782/hogland-all-alone

https://www.scandipop.co.uk/song-hogland-feat-kiddo-letting-go/?fbclid=IwAR3C2ULiilkVOmvRr8rnbhms00NWOACQuKGoocGEVNPvaneIp7lhg0Yobg0

https://popmuzik.se/71534/hogland-berattar-om-nya-singeln-someone-new/

https://popmuzik.se/60106/hogland-2-young-2-die/

https://www.vxonews.se/noje/popular-musikgrupp-till-vaxjo/?fbclid=IwAR1o607l4VzeD3cwAUMluF90KzG50z8zH9xHsbDEW8mv3KRq_hR_IRpLbDU

I know that unfortunately most of these sources are not in English but I would like to point out this point taken from the guidelines “Sources do not have to be available online or written in English”. I would also like to point out this sentence taken directly from the guideline page “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.” I don’t really know why I didn’t have all these sources in the article from the beginning but maybe it would be a good idea for me to put them in. Sincerely/Atencionsamente Tobbe s 97 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Tobbe s 97, glancing at these sources, I don't know that they do much for notability. dance-charts.de calls itself a site for "DJ-promo", and per their FAQ page clearly engages in promotional coverage that we cannot accept as reliable and independent. The scandipop and vxonews articles and the second popmuzik.se article do not have significant coverage of the subject, and the first popmuzik article is a back-and-forth interview which contains essentially no independent analysis of the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Telus Corporation

Hello, @Rosguill:

On 21 March 2020, you assisted in moving Telus Corporation, an article I created in March, but the Page Curation tool I sometimes use does not show Wikipedia giving me credit for it. There must be a way to fix that and I was wondering if you knew how or if not, could point me in the right direction.

Thank you,

WildStar talk 14:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

WildStar, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. I see that you're listed as having the first edit in the article's history, and it shows up when I look you up on xtools. While you're not listed in the page logs, that really doesn't matter (and it's also clear from the first entry in the logs that I moved a preexisting article). Logs are finicky and I'm not aware of any way to change them, but I also don't think that there's any reason for you to be concerned about this inconsistency. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, OK, I see it too with xtools. Must be something particular to the page curation script. Thank you, WildStar talk 21:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Tina Ahuja

Tina Ahuja page deserves a separate identity. She is daughter of veteran actor Govinda (actor) and her name is on various Wikipedia pages and she has started her career in film, song albums and special invitees on TV shows and inauguration. She is notable personality and her page is in two other languages.HariSinghw (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

HariSinghw, none of those are necessarily arguments for the creation of a Wikipedia article. The standards that articles are expected on English Wikipedia to meet are WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The former requires multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources, and the latter requires a track record of multiple major roles in important films/shows/etc. I didn't see evidence that either of these had been met yet in the prior draft. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dispute moderation

Hi @Rosguill:, since our exchange on the dispute resolution noticeboard on the issue of Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews, one of the editors involved has gone off and made a series of POV edits to the article itself, and flagrantly doesn't care at all for the mediation process. Could I have your advice on how and whether to escalate this to more behavioural procedure and have these edits rolled back? The page now reads "all Bulgarian Jews" were saved, a blatant falsehood. How and where can I seek some sanction on this behaviour? GPinkerton (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I don't see the exact copy "all Bulgarian Jews". That having been said, I think the way to respond is to revert the most recent contributions with an edit summary asking them to propose the changes on the talk page for discussion. If they ignore that, report them to the edit warring noticeboard. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks! The first sentence in the article now reads "which prevented the deportation of all the 48,000 Bulgarian Jews". This is clearly wrong, so I will revert to the earlier version. Thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, for what it's worth, given this development in particular I am a bit pessimistic about the possibility of resolving issues on the talk page. I'd suggest that a goal to work toward before reaching out to DRN again (or any other noticeboard) would be to focus on one issue at a time, whether large or small. A DRN discussion focusing on the question of whether Thracian and Macedonian Jews are in-scope for the article would be productive, as would a discussion focusing on the specific wording of individual claims or the content of a single section. Trying to do all at once is a recipe for a mess. Identify the most imminent points of contention on the talk page, and then reach out for help if discussion stalls. signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I suppose the best thing would be to try and change the article's name altogether to something not so pro-Bulgarian, as in "Holocaust in Bulgaria" or "Bulgaria and the Holocaust" or similar. Would that fit the parameters? The same editor opposed the inclusion of anything Holocaust-related on the Bulgaria during World War II page on the basis it was then called "Military History of Bulgaria in WWII" ("Bulgaria during World War II" redirected there), so I changed the name. GPinkerton (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton Proposing the page move will likely be a productive step forward. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks, I'll do that. GPinkerton (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I've proposed the move, should you be moved to comment on it. Thanks for the advice! GPinkerton (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, just letting you know, I'm probably going to sit out for now, but may be willing to close the discussion if a consensus isn't clear. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Hi, just an update on the same issue: it seems there was prior and concurrent off-Wiki co-ordination on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, which I was not previously aware of and which has been reported here to the ANI by a third party. GPinkerton (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Hi, the request move on this topic has run on and debate there seems to have come to rest, although there remain some objections; would you mind looking at it? (If it's allowed for me to move for closure by asking in this way.) GPinkerton (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, I'll try to take a look at this when I have a chance, but it would help if you could provide a direct link to the discussion in question, I don't see anything related to this issue currently open at ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Thanks! Yes the ANI thread was archived without much attention, it's now here. The request move is here, where consensus appears to be in (broadly) favour of the move. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton thanks for the updated link. Honestly, I think it would be best if a totally uninvolved editor were to close the discussion, so I'm going to decline to do so for now. If this is still unresolved in a few weeks, I'll reconsider stepping in. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_12&oldid=964895369"