User talk:Rosguill

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You are doing a wonderful job. Keep it up. LudhianaUser (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Need advice on New Pages Patrol

Hello! I recently got permission to New Page Patrol and I am still learning. I have done some work on here. Could you please take a look at them and see if I have done it correctly or not? Thank you and have a nice day! SunDawntalk 07:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

SunDawn For the most part your reviews look good so far. I'm not sure Eric Lockett quite passes notability guidelines, how did you arrive at that decision? You also can safely accept 1st Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda, as government elections that can be verified are inherently notable. I'd also encourage you to use WP:RATER on articles you review so that they get assigned to relevant Wikiprojects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. After a more careful reading I think Eric is not as notable as I thought. Should I unreview it? I will get WP:RATER. Thank you very much! SunDawntalk 08:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

SunDawn, if you've done a search for sources and still come up short of notability guidelines, the next step would be AfD--I typically skip PROD unless the article is very poor or otherwise extremely unlikely to be a controversial decision. Alternatively, given that the article is relatively new (<1 week) and that there's a good chance there may be coverage in Greek that you wouldn't be able to easily find, you could ad a {{notability}} tag and leave it unreviewed for someone else to pick up. That way you let editors interested in the article know that it's on thin ice without initiating the deletion process quite yet. Finally, for borderline cases where I'm very confident that there's more coverage out there that I can't find (or where the possibility of harm from the article is nil), I typically add the {{notability}} tag but mark it reviewed. As an added note, if you haven't come across it yet, WP:QG has a lot of pragmatic advice for reviewing various topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I will get back to you if I have any more questions. Have a good day! SunDawntalk 15:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

NPP School

Hi Rosguill, I am interested in the new page patrol school/process, you may remember declining my request recently - after a short wikibreak - I feel that it would be nice to do some new page reviewing at some point and if you have any slots open I would be interested in filling one of them seen as you are the closest time zone to me. Sincerely, Zippybonzo | talk 18:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Zippybonzo, unfortunately I'm still overloaded with off-wiki tasks and can't commit to training you at this time. IMO the time zone proximity isn't that important, so I would encourage you to talk to the other trainers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - time zones aren’t my priority either but I will probably have a chat with another trainer at some point - thanks for the help anyway. Zippybonzo | talk 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker), @Zippybonzo, Indeed Rosguill is very busy off wiki, I was Infact going to write to them to check up on them when I noticed this message. If or not other teachers are busy I really can’t tell, I know Barkeep49 is busy also, I really don’t know about other licensed tutors namely Cassiopeia, & Atsme, perhaps they might be gracious enough to take you in. Onel5969 is another great licensed tutor but I’m doubtful they would be willing to do any teaching for now, I’m not quite sure but if all the aforementioned aren’t available then you might find asking questions here might help you, until such a time you can get someone to teach you assuming all the aforementioned editors are temporarily unavailable. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Zippybonzo - I'm happy to help. Just post a note on my UTP when you're ready. Atsme 💬 📧 04:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to respond so late, but just thought I'd let folks know that while I no longer do NPP patrol, still willing to help out at the school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletions not deleting

Hi Rosguill. Just so you know, when you closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23 § Chakra(Naruto) as delete, the redirect didn't actually get deleted, I assume due to the ongoing issues with XFDcloser. A similar thing happened previously with your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16 § Military journalist. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ack, I thought those issues had been resolved. Fixed for this page at least. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And there's Frivolous as well (RfD). – Uanfala (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Damn, thought I'd covered all the ones from yesterday. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've had a sweep at the remaining leftover redirects, and for the following two discussions deletion hasn't come through: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_3#High_Princess_(Stache) and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_3#Areo_Magazine. – Uanfala (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks for all the work you put into this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Help :D

I saw you talking to someone about the pages Porin Ässät and Ässät and how he should request history merges and moves instead of doing what he did. I also saw that the account got banned in the Finnish Wikipedia so it's likely that he wont even come here to look. I agree that the pages should be moved but i cant do anything about it. Can you help woth that? -Pallit-on (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Pallit-on Since it looks like the swap is warranted and uncontroversial, I went ahead and took care of it myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, finally i can sleep at night. -Pallit-on (Say something) 16:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Recording Registry on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

QUERRIES ON A REVIEWED ARTICLE

Hello User:Rosguill, I would like to begin by thanking you for your efforts in promoting free and open access to knowledge, I wish to ask for advice about the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Kavaruganda) which was reviewed and appeared on various search engines for a few days and disappeared for a few days until now, What could have been the issue ? looking forward to hear from you. Best regards Ndahiro derrick (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any log of the page having been reviewed, so if it appeared in search engines that was an error as far as I can tell. My guesss is that you mistook the reviewing of a redirect pointing to that article, Kavaruganda Guillaume, for a review of the article itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So indeed, I am here about a review

I stopped working on Azov Special Purpose Regiment when it was redirected and I was told that Ukrainian Wikipedians can’t be trusted to be neutral. I’m still processing that, but although I personally think this unfinished translation still has some of the flaws of the original, I am curious about the review, which I can’t seem to access. I can only read the article through the history, which doesn’t seem to include the review; is there a better place to look? Elinruby (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what "review" means in context; the "review" was just me marking the redirect as approved. This decision is based purely on the redirect's suitability as a redirect, it is not an opinion on whether an articlee would be appropriate there. The AfD discussion, however, does provide a consensus justification for redirecting the article to Azov Battalion; I have not read through that discussion in depth. If you have any issues with the close, you should take it up with them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have issues with the close per se, more with the nomination, and its stated rationale. But that wasn’t the question; sorry if I wasn’t clear, So I won’t go into that; I am still processing it anyway.

I was wondering why it was getting reviewed if it wasn’t getting used. And as sub-sections of that, what the review said and why I couldn’t find it. You’ve pretty much answered that, but just to clarify: suitability as a redirect as opposed to what? Deletion? Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If a redirect isn't suitable with its current target, its target can be changed or it can be nominated for RfD, which may result in the redirect's deletion, the restoration of a prior article at the title, or other outcomes. I review pretty much all new redirects on English Wikipedia, this one just happened to come up today in the new pages queue. Moreover, there isn't a written review: the process of reviewing is just me or another NPP editor or admin assessing the page, taking appropriate further actions if any, and then marking the page as "reviewed". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

for taking the time to review the articles I started! All my best, Lewolka (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Fish friday" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fish friday and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Fish friday until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey there

It’s been a minute since we last interacted and i thought it wise to check up on you. I trust all is well. 💗 Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Celestina007, nice to hear from you. It's been a busy few months outside Wikipedia but I think I'm finally getting back on top of everything. All good on your end? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly, knowing that you are in good health has put my mind to rest. As for me, asides attending the funeral service of a loved one, all is great for me. Nice 'hearing' from you mate. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ariel Posen

Hi! Thank you for reviewing this article I wrote. Do you think it could be returned to become independent article? Thank you, Atbannett (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Atbannett, I reviewed the redirect created after the article was removed, not the article you wrote, and that review is not in itself and endorsement of the decision to blank-and-redirect the article. Looking at the old revision now, I do agree with the editor that BLAR-ed it, because as written it cited no independent references. This is a helpful summary of our article inclusion guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Page protection request

Hello I believe that this 2 new ip [[1]],[[2]] are the same person who continue to post unsourced and biased edits and reverts on Karađorđe page. Can you please protect the page ? Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:46 02.May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:51 02.May 2022 (UTC)

multiple means more than one

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple consisting of, including, or involving more than one

The General Notability Guidelines are met if two reliable sources cover something in significant detail. Please revert your notability tag added at [3]. There are countless thousands of articles that only have two reliable sources covering them. Dream Focus 06:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:THREE is a pretty common interpretation of the minimum requirement, so I disagree with your interpretation. If you can provide a third source I have no issue with the tag being removed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:Three is an essay and on someone's user page, not even getting enough support to be its own essay article. And the guy writing it has clarified that what he meant was too many references to look through, just post the three best ones in the AFD to make your case, and that it was just his personal opinion. So not really something you should go by. Dream Focus 15:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

nu, you're wikilawyering at this point, it's well-established that the "multiple" clause in GNG is intentionally left underspecified and that 3 sources is a common interpretation; personally I usually interpret that as license to allow for fewer sources if the sources are of exceptionally good quality. At any rate, I'm not particularly invested in the specific article you've brought up with me, so you can go ahead and remove the tag if you please. But I don't see a need to self-revert my edit, as it accurately reflects my perspective on notability guidelines which I am quite confident is within parameters accepted by the Wikipedia community. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

An user is vandalizing a Wikipedia article.

Hello, there is a problem with a Wikipedia user (User 176.64.12.188). He has been providing misinformation in the Uyghur Americans article. He exaggerates the figures for that ethnic group, since the figures he includes are much higher than those that appear in the article's sources. He has basically substituted the original quantitative data from that community, which is based on the included sources, for other data, and he has done that several times. Although I have reverted his data, he puts it back. He's basically vandalizing the article.--Isinbill (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the page, I realized that I made a mistake: This user was not the first to enter the wrong data. He just put them back on. I have already notified, on the user's page, that these data are not correct.--Isinbill (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for RfD comment

Hello. Could you come and give your opinion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP training

You are the most active trainer I can find, and you live in the same time zone as me, so I decided you can be my trainee for the NPP school. I'm not that experienced with NPPing so I think I could benefit. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 02:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Interstatefive, could I get back to you on that in 2 weeks? My work schedule is shifting soon so I don't have a good sense of how much time I can dedicate to mentoring people on Wikipedia. If you can find a different tutor in the meantime I would encourage you to go ahead with them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 16:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Double group (magnetochemistry)

You recently reviewed this article which, unhappily, has been the subject of a lengthy dispute. The version in my sandbox will replace Double group (magnetochemistry) (after 21 march). I hope this will be definitive. A re-review will be welcome. Petergans (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Petergans, my review was not of the article, but rather of the redirect which is at Double group. I have not looked at Double group (magnetochemistry), but if replaced it will be automatically re-added to the new page queue for review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

APPLICATION FOR MENTORSHIP

I am looking for a mentor. I see you're taking in adoptees. I wanna go through a course under your tutelage for a period of time that you determine for a counter vandalism course and/or a course on proper page creation. After which I will be given rollback and/or new page reviewer privileges. I'm reaching out to you because I wanna do this the proper way. It will be a honor to learn. Cheers Amaekuma (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I generally only provide NPP mentorship for editors who are already close to qualifying, not general counter-vandalism or page creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Review vs rating

Hi, thanks for reviewing the Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site article. It was rated around six months ago, though - how come it wasn't just automatically marked 'reviewed' after that? 🤔  Tewdar  19:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I marked the redirect Yana RHS reviewed, not the article that it targeted. According to Special:Logs, the article itself was reviewed on November 28, 2021. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Just me not paying attention again, then. Sorry to have bothered you. 😁  Tewdar  21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for Review

Hello, I have a Request for review Can you please review those if notable or eligible.

1. Millat Times

1. Shafiq Khan

1. Sanjay Lathar

–Botu Yadav (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do reviews on request. I'll note that Millat Times has improvement tags on it that you should probably try to address, and that Sanjay Lathar has already been reviewed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Botu Yadav:, Millat Times is a nice and reliable media source in Urdu, and I've known it to be okay. But I doubt this is a paid work and has COI associated with it. I do not find sources explicit in establishing notability as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile:, I don't know why you thought that this is paid, I had never did a paid work. Whenever i am free, I do 1-4 articles at a time. So, it's not about paid work. Millat Times had 1 Million followers which page was deleted, so i think this is also good for establishing the Notability and many sources are listed below.

—Botu Yadav (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for review

Hey my friend Rosguill when i search Saiee Manjrekar article on google, the article doesn't see on google, please 🙏 review it Md Adnan (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do reviews on request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Md Adnan, do you have any connections with the subject? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 19:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ofcourse Biroo ❤️ Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please review this article Saiee Manjrekar Mohd Adnan Discuss 01:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Md Adnan, please see WP:COI and disclose all your connections. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 07:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for name change: Bear Sanctuary Belitsa

Hello Rosguill, according to the official press release, the name "dancing bears park" has been changed to "bear sanctuary belitsa". I have adopted the changes in the text. Question: How to change the title of the page? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Bears_Park_Belitsa and https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/press-releases/bear-sanctuary-belitsa-20-year-anniversary-and-a-new-name Sonjap783 (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Sanctuary_Belitsa Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Qäsee

Hi, I've reverted 3 cut/paste moves performed by User:Qäsee, two of which were made today, including one that you had reverted previously. Is it time for a clue-stick block? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there were more c/p moves made in April, and I haven't gone further back than that yet. In addition, most of the talk pages involved haven't been synchronized either. This looks to be a big problem, and is one I really hadn't planned on spending much time on. Is the a matter for ANI? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them pending engagement on C&P moves _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. BilCat (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Rosguill,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 803 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 856 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but also:

Hey, I saw you granted me psuedo-AP (thanks!), but apparently the bot will re-review when I unreview it. I wanted to leave this in the queue for another reviewer to check, hence why I hit unreview. This particular one I'm fine with leaving and have watchlisted, but Is there a foolproof way to force a page into the queue? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think there's an existing way for you to force unpatrol on redirects if you have the pseduoperm, as the bot that operates on it is just going to keep marking it reviewed when it runs. DannyS712 would have a more definitive answer--I imagine it is technically possible to add a template flag to pages you want to skip from review but don't know how trivial or not that is to implement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Integrated Systems Inc. notability

You added a Notability tag and I'm looking for guidance on what to do. The page was preexisting, but it was just a redirect to *one* of the company's products which wasn't very useful. I simply added some flesh to the bones. The company's products had pre-exisiting WP pages, as did the founder and their investor. The company is also mentioned from those pages, and I converted those mentions to links to this new page. So it seems inconsistent if those are notable but the company is not. Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company of the same name, the company Integrated Systems Inc. is defunct for 12 years, it looks like names can be recycled.

-- Peter.corke (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Peter.corke, So, redirect suitability and notability are two separate questions. My concern with the article is that it does not, as written, meet WP:NCORP, as it lacks citations to multiple examples of significant secondary-source coverage. Brief reports about mergers and funding are generally not considered significant: we're looking for in-depth articles analyzing the company's products, structure, impact, etc. Federal court judgments, meanwhile, are an example of a primary source, so while they may sometimes be usable to back up a citation, it's not relevant to notability (although the existence of a high profile court case could suggest that additional secondary coverage about the case may exist). I'm not sure what you mean by Your Notability tag has a link to a *different* company--the notability tag doesn't include a link to any other article, nor did I mention one in the edit summary. At the time that I placed the tag, I didn't have any opinion of what next steps should be: I placed it to let you know about my concerns, and to give you time to address them before I or another new page reviewer proceed to a deletion process or WP:BLAR.

Now, if the subject of the article is found to be not notable, then we would consider either deleting it or converting it to a redirect; if there are no suitable targets, then deletion is the way to go. I'll note that PSOS (real-time operating system), the previous redirect target, was created all the way back in 2002, before we had consistent processes for new article reviewing, so there's a nontrivial chance that it may not be notable either. However, it is technically possible for a company's product to be notable even if the company isn't (i.e. if the only independent, significant coverage relating to the company is focused primarily on a specific product), especially because our notability standards are higher for companies than they are about individual products. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Re my "*different* company" comment it looks like the "Find sources" part of the tag is just doing a generic Google search for "Integrated Systems Inc." with news/newspaper/book tags, which is why all I see is hits about the new company.

Are "trade magazines" considered suitable sources? For example [4], [5] or [6]? Peter.corke (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It depends. Wired is generally good, although the linked article is borderline as far as the coverage's depth. The EDN piece has no byline and looks like large chunks, if not all of it, are straight out of a press release. The Military Aerospace piece looks like good coverage of Boeing McDonnell, not so much of ISI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP Question

Shouldn't we require NPPSCHOOL for editors with under 3k–5k edits before they can become autopatrolled/reviewers? I realize they're given a trial period, but who is overseeing them during the trial? I'm of the mind that proper schooling = better reviews that won't crop up later in the queue, and even if they turn out to be UPE, it reduces the chances of getting another Hatchens, or worse. Atsme 💬 📧 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Their track record would be reviewed when they re-apply for permissions. My concern with sending people to NPPSCHOOL by default is that I'm worried about inadvertently providing NPP training to black-hat editors; generally I save the NPPSCHOOL recommendation for editors who are clearly here in good faith but whose NPP-related skills aren't quite where they need to be for the permission. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to see something bizarre, see see this discussion. It's possible that I misunderstood something, or incorrectly assumed the obvious was obvious, but that's never been a major issue for me, although I'm far from being perfect. I have encountered editors with issues involving sentence comprehension and use–mention distinction. I thought that what I proposed aligned with what's already on the project page, except that I added collegial equestrian, and stock horse/western competition under equestrian sports, never imagining that it would be an issue. I was adding it to help clarify equine/equestrian topics for reviewers. How it got twisted into the opposition thinking my proposal suggested that significant coverage was not required is beyond me. In fact the section where I attempted to include it even states Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual people and horses who are involved in equestrian sport if they: so I'm thinking they somehow conflated my proposal with the proposal in the section above. It's just too bizarre. Atsme 💬 📧 01:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Posting my concerns here made me look deeper into the issue. Hopefully this edit brings the needed clarity and resolves the issue. Atsme 💬 📧 01:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gstatic.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gstatic.com. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Palosirkka (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating new article (application of guidelines)

Hello, I am a (relatively) new contributor and am experiencing a challenge in getting my first new article published (even as a stub), and therefore would appreciate some feedback from the experienced editor like yourself. I have tried to learn from my very first submission (which appeared like a good candidate to me at the time) but seemingly I didn't quote enough sources and it was declined, so for my second attempt I've chosen the subject for whom I've had a good variety of quality independent sources with significant coverage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrew_Rovenko), as I've been following their work for a while now.

The same editor who declined my very first failed article had also reviewed my new submission and left a couple of comments questioning the suitability of my submission, but not declining it. I tried to get a clarification from this editor on their Talk page to confirm the reasons behind their concerns, while providing the reference to the notability guidelines that I used as a basis for my submission, but after asking some additional questions they didn't provide any specifics at all and directed me to find help elsewhere, which I'm trying to do now.

If it's ok, it might be easier if I refer to our conversation with the editor, so that I don't have to repeat my points: Article_Review_Comment_on_Andrew_Rovenko

I'd really appreciate some guidance / constructive feedback from another experienced editor like yourself, as at the moment it doesn't seem like I'm making much progress.

Thank you Jervisbay94 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Jervisbay94

At a glance, I think I agree with the prior reviewer: it seems like what is actually covered in citations is Rocketgirl, not Rovenko, and I don't think the achievements listed in the article add up to WP:NCREATIVE; to meet that standard, I would want to see multiple, in-depth reviews or critiques attesting to the work's lasting importance and legacy, and preferably a broader body of notable work. Given that Rovenko won an "emerging photographer" award this year, I would wager that this article is WP:TOOSOON. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rosguill Thank you, I really appreciate your response and clarification, as it really helps me understand better the perspective from which the new articles are assessed. I only wish that these considerations were included into the guidelines for WP:NCREATIVE, as the particular criteria that I thought applies to my subject specifies that the work has to be significant or well known and a subject of multiple independent periodical articles, both of which seemed to relevant to me in this case (and there's a separate criteria related to the importance of the author, but it doesn't seem like they need to apply simultaneously)

I did find additional international media coverage of this work (including non-English language media). If I wanted to include this coverage into the article for future assessments but not use them for citations, what would be the best section to include these sources?

Thanks again for your very kind response! Jervisbay94 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ars arcana Rfd close

Hi there, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_27#Ars_arcana as delete. The deletion summary does not link to the discussion, only to the general Rfd page. Since you mention the discussion in your close for attribution reasons, I think it's worth trying going back to link directly to the discussion. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's an unfortunate oversight of the script. I've addressed it just now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove me from Redirect autopatrol list

Hi Rosguill, you were the person who put me on the Redirect autopatrol list, could you remove me from there? I am now autopatrolled and it doesn't make sense anymore. Thank you very much and sorry for the inconvenience, I have made the request here. Dandilero (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet master using multiple IP accounts

Hi Rosguill, I have found IP users linked to one sockpuppet master who you have previously banned. [7] He's back now using different IP users to restore his old revisions that I've reverted months back. [8] [9] Ayaltimo (talk) 06:08, 08 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see enough evidence to justify blocking them: at Barakat ibn Umar Din, they did restore content added by Zemenfes, but it's not clear that the two IPs are connected, and the second IP could plausibly have come across the prior reverted change and reacted to it, rather than having colluded with Zemenfes. The change at Mansur ad-Din of Adal is similar, but not identical to Zemenfes's edits, and reviewing the rest of their editing history I don't see any dead-ringers other than a shared interested in East African topics. Given that Zemenfes was blocked primarily for edit warring and inappropriate edit summaries, I'm disinclined to take action unless more of the same occurs again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

2601:280:CB02:1C79:146E:722B:2C2B:5CC7 you're talking about here is part of the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range currently suspected in ZemenfesKidus' SPI. I looked into this for a few hours, and found much evidence, which I've filed there.

@Ayaltimo: perhaps in the future, it would be better not to revert with "IP vand rv" as edsum, as you did here and here. First of all, this is not vandalism (please read WP:NOTVANDALISM), and second, as long as a user has not been proven to be a sockpuppet, you should not revert solely on that basis. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I understand. I was too busy to build a strong case against ZemenfesKidus. I saw the SPI but there has been no response from there so I thought I could come here and show IP users restoring old reversions belonging to the sock master. I've been encountering the same problems right here. [10] They share a similar IP range and launch attacks on multiple pages with many being vandalized so that's why I continued with "IP vand RV" when he removed sourced content [11]. Either way, thank you for building a strong case. They've been quite disruptive. Ayaltimo (talk) 16:28, 09 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're interested

Talk:2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#Saadat_Kadyrova; I think there is a pattern here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that discussion is getting heated, but it seems like the basic arguments made regarding Kadyrova were defensible, at least until you were able to provide additional secondary sources covering Kadyrova's comments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm just not aware of a constructive way to approach someone who keeps repeating the same things over and over again. I know we should keep our cool, but I also have my limits and I'm at a breaking point. Perhaps I should stop engaging with this user if they're not planning to change their approach. There should be a limit of someone WP:CRUSHing their way on talk discussions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you've identified the correct solution there: once you've made your point, take a step back and proceed to 3O, DRN or an RfC if need be. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nicolai L. Volodos

Dear Rosguill, Many thanks for your partitipation in improving of created by us article Nicolai L. Volodos. Following your recommendation, some references have been added. In case you consider that improvement enough to remove your tag, please do it.

Vit713828 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit713828 (talk • contribs)

Vit713828, thanks for continuing to work on the article, but looking at it again it looks like there are still many paragraphs with no citations at all that at a minimum could use a footnote for an existing source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill,

I am writing to you on behalf of our International team developing this article (Nicolai L Volodos).

First and foremost, thank you for your attention to our work.

But, before to proceed further, I would like to ask you to read this material (https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(22)00142-3/fulltext#relatedArticles. ) for better understanding of the person we are talking about.

Looking into the history of this article, you may see that we started our work on 22 May 2020, and have been continuing it until very recently, keeping the article in form of a draft. Such approach has allowed us to prevent any unwanted interferenceі in our work.

Now, why?

From the text you can see that Professor NL Volodos lived and worked in Ukraine. Mostly all materials, published by him and about him, are in Russian or Ukrainian. So, in those materials, already listed in the References, Russian speaking people can find all the dada required to consider them as proves for all the facts mentioned in this Wiki article.

Members of our informal group are Internationally recognized experts in the field of vascular and endovascular surgery from Western Europe and the States, and former Professor Volodos’ colleagues, including his son dr. Sergiy Volodos. We all knew Professor Volodos personally, many of us worked with him for many years.

Currently, we work hard on translation of the works published by Professor N Volodos and his colleagues in Russian into good English. So, later we will be able to add them to the References. But, this process is very complicated. We have to pay attention to the copyrights and that sort of possible issues, etc.

After all, this is our plan for your consideration. First possible option is to remove all your tags from the page (so, they will not encourage some ignorants to make changes to the article for the purpose just to take part in the process) and prevent the material (in case that is in your power) from further editings for the period required for preparation of the mentioned works in English, which will be added to the References in due course. Such approach can help us to protect the article from incompetent editions we are worried about. The second possible option is to hide (or even remove the article from the English Wiki), so, we will be able to improve it further in the less aggressive environment. In the second case, no one will be able to see that information about Professor N Volodos in English. The second is not the best option, because some lecturers and Professors are going to refer to this page during their lectures for medical and post-graduate students.

Thank you, and count on your understanding and informal approach to the problem.

Vit713828 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So, three issues:

1. I don't see what any of what you just wrote has to do with including inline citations. If the existing Russian references support all of the content in the article, simply create additional footnotes pointing to the existing references so that each paragraph and exceptional claim is verifiable.
2. Wikipedia has a strict rule against sharing accounts. If you are working on this or other articles as a team, please create a separate account for each individual participating.
3. We also have strict conflict of interest policies. If you are all former colleagues of Volodos, that comprises a conflict of interest, and you should a) disclose it on your user page b) disclose it on the talk page of any article you edit where it is relevant c) avoid editing relevant articles directly, in favor of submitting edit requests. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed and clear explanations! Now it seems to me that it would be better to remove our article for a while for deep re-editing, taking into account your recommendations. Hope that its next appearance will be much more successful.

Vit713828 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Toufik Boushaki

Hello. I cordially ask you to copy in my Sandbox the deleted article on the energy researcher Toufik Boushaki, now within the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was deleted on May 20, 2021 at 10:39, in order to improve it. Cordially. --Authentise (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It is now at User:Authentise/Toufik Boushaki _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirect autopatrol

Hi Rosguill. Since the accidental damage of my laptop on 14 May, I'm not in a position to access my main account, and the technician alongside the LCD is likely [not sure] to come after 8 July, according to the customer care executive of the Dell. It is getting delayed due to lockdown in China. I contribute to very little extent through RMT and AfC etc on my mobile account. The moving process is all about redirects in between, and they often go un-patrolled. Please grant my account the psuedo-right so that the redirect are by-default marked as patrolled. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Gabe Klinger Article Review

Hey Rosguill, I saw you reviewed my page for Gabe Klinger. Someone else took it down because they felt it lacked notability. I was wondering if you think I should revert the page back to what it was or do you also think this is a subject that lacks notability? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob1026 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the redirect, not the article, so no opinion on the pre-existing article's notability as I have not looked at it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Rob1026, I skimmed through the pre-existing article and I agree that there's no indication of independent notability. Neither do the sources help the subject pass WP:GNG nor are there significant and multiple roles which would help the subject qualify WP:NFILMMAKER. So, please desist and don't revert but try to work on issues that have been highlighted to you. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do thanks for the input. Rob1026 (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rosguill, hope you're doing well. May I please ask your senior opinion, in view of your experience of peaceful dispute resolution in AA topics? Here, I started a discussion about a revert that I felt was not justified. Not so much the content of the revert, but the method of operation itself, which I feel i(knowing the user well) is being overused. I admit I sounded more irritated then an average user would be in such average situation. However, what followed afterwards puzzled me very much - the intervention by the mentor felt anything but mediation or dispute resolution attempt to me. I felt attacked and threatened, and was left bewildered about the whole policy vs guidelines vs essay difference. Do you think it was a right step to ask an emotionally involved mentor to intervene instead of providing explanation and using neutral dispute resolution tools? And what is the right thing to do with the intimidating response from the mentor? Does it comply with Wikipedia code of conduct? Thanks. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Eh, mentoring on Wikipedia is rather informal, and someone mentoring another editor isn't obligated to intervene as a mediator or uninvolved party. They did get more testy with you than would have been ideal, but I think they're right on the underlying matter: Golden doesn't appear to have done anything wrong by reverting your change, and your responses on the talk page could be read as wikilawyering as well as inaccurate advice. If MJL had showed up to vote stack on the content question, that would be a canvassing issue, but they limited their response to addressing misconceptions about policies and guidelines around edit warring, so I'm not really seeing a sanctionable issue here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain things in a plain language, Rosguill, much appreciated! Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)