User talk:Rosguill

Delete or Re-direct Chantal Wiertz

Please Redirect the page Chantal Wiertz to Miss Curaçao or delete Chantal Wiertz page since it’s non-notable beauty queen page, there is not much reliable references supporting it and lack of notability. Thank You... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.73.199.172 (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, if you want to suggest an article for deletion, you can follow the instructions at WP:AFD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Epic Rap Battles of History redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing title of Wikipedia article

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

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

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

Weser Renaissance

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

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

Typhoon Molave

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

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

User:CTang04

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

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

Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria sur le Parc

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

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

Admin Closure Question

Hi Rosguill,

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

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

AFD Ghazi Bismillah khan

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

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

Adopt-A-User

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reviewing my redirects!

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

Editor: Hania_Tarik - Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke Hughes (ice hockey)

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

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

Free Nationals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy holidays

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

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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

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

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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

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

Have a Happy Holidays!

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

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

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

— 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

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

Happy holidays

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

Thank you for your review!

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

Moving page to Draft as Draft:NSTEP

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

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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

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

America's Book of Secrets

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

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

Merry Christmas

Dear Rosguill,

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

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

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

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

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

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg

Merry Christmas (:

Deprodding of Iman Qureshi

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Iman Qureshi, which you proposed for deletion. This tennis player in fact does pass WP:NTENNIS as she played for Pakistan in the Fed Cup [1]. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Iffy★Chat -- 15:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

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

Blocked UPE

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

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

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

Editor refuses move to draft

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

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

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

Grand Mufti of Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

Adem Kastrati

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

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

Merry Christmas

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

Third party involvement

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

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

Query Regarding Page

Hi Rosguill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adem Kastrati

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

Disruptive Editor

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

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

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

North Division (NHL) and North Division

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

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

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

Peter Fenton [guitarist) of Siouxsie and the Banshees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rigorous application of WP:NORG

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

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

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

Kashmiri handicrafts

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

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

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

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

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

A cookie for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply regarding ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incomplete RfD closure

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

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

Please remove new page reviewer

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

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

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

Talk:Die Hard/Archive 2

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

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

RE:Big Soto moved to draftspace

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

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

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

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

Did my edits pass your reviews?

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

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

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

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

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

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

Abishe (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

Happy New Year

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

Happy New Year!

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

---

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

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

Minor PoV matter

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

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

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

NPP School Request

Happy New Year Rosguill,

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

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

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

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

A kitten for you!

Happy New Year! Rosguill :)

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

NPR

Hello Rosguill,

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Advice on an article title

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

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

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

How do you curate new pages so quickly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ping about the NPP school. Eyebeller 15:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.MarioJump83! 03:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirect review for 🍜

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

Thanks

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

NPP

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

Windows 94

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

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

Draft:Ellen Alexander (actress) Tag Team

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

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

Star Gold

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

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

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

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

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

References

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] [6]

[7] [8]

[9]

[10]

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

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

Can I move Draft:CalFile back to CalFile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to user-talkify a deleted page

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

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

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

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

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

Chaavu Kaburu Challaga page redirection

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. you claimed that ArbCom did not decline to hear your case. That's not what I said but that's beside the point. What happened was part of a discussion that started with Drmies' insults about that ridiculous arbitration case and my Arbcom stunt. I responded with: my arbitration request was not "a stunt" but supported by 25 diffs; evidence of polarizing remarks and insults against scientists, mainly. HoC then said the request was declined, which suggested that the evidence I talked about was rejected, which is of course not true. There was also the fact that I had withdrawn, so it wasn't really declined, although I conceded: Some arbitrators who had missed the email voted to decline because they regarded the case - about fringe theories and advocacy - as a content issue. None of them has commented on the evidence. Then HoC kept going by showing the old notification instead of the amended one to suggest I was lying. That's why I asked HoC to be honest, and I added a link to the notification which says "withdrawn". However, on their Talk page, HoC suggested again that I lied, this time about the date of my email to the Committee. I complained about that too. At least they struck out that suggestion.
2. "...the page was already flooded with new insults against scholars and the usual evidenceless "comments" by Drmies" is an example of allegations against other editors and misrepresentation of the case history. I beg to differ. These are facts, not allegations. I complained twice about the off-topic rant by Drmies which contained insults, false allegations, uncivil language and lacked any evidence.[13], but my messages were kept on hold as "awaiting moderation" for a couple of days, which is why I lost confidence and withdrew my request. HoC's new attack against scholars is also a fact, not an allegation. HoC wrote this: Calling out people who criticize Rwanda's RPF as "revisionsts" and "genocide deniers", (aka "genocide blackmail") is very common. In Rever's case, it has already resulted in death threats and in stories such as "How Judi Rever is a cynical genocide revisionist, intent on murdering victims a second time." [14] What HoC says here is that scholars who qualify Rever's fringe theories as a form of denial are somehow part of an international scheme to attack Rever on behalf of the Rwandan government. I'm not sure how I, by referring to this horrible accusation, end up as the bad person.
3. you had been editing against consensus and dismissing other editors' concerns as failing to respect sources that you have identified as experts and/or a conspiracy against your point of view on the topic. Actually I did not edit since my block, except for a couple of attempts to save edits from deletion. I can't be punished twice for what happened earlier. About the alleged consensus, WP:CON says: consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) and: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I believe this gave me the right to insist on editing according to NPOV and RS guidelines, on an accurate representation of the credible sources, and to criticize undue weight given to non RS and non experts over scholarly literature. In a nutshell, it's the Eiffeltower in Madrid analogy. If you read the debates, over the past couple of weeks, you'll see that my focus was on the literature and on defending scholars. Btw, they listed the Eiffeltower analogy as an "attack". Compare this to their attacks against scholars. Something is off here, don't you think? Saflieni (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

ANIs are pointless if editors ignore the defence of the accused [15], misinterpret the evidence, and forget to apply the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I don't appreciate the additional false accusation of edit warring when I've explained that my edits have been consistently deleted/reverted from day one and that the other two editors teamed up to avoid problems with 3RR [16][17][18]. I don't understand why everyone seems to be so trigger happy to condemn and block others without getting the facts straight. That's as rude as it is unjust.Saflieni (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

COI and associated connected contributor

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

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

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

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

@Walter Görlitz, I believe you can make your point without that “tone” which is borderline condescending. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Where is the borderline condescending tone? I asked for there to be a discussion and there was none. I simply commented on it. I am being neither patronizing nor acting a way that is superior to Rosguill. The template Rosguill used has a process and it was not followed. That is all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, Celestina007, while the Are you new to this bit in the first comment was maybe a little condescending, I think this has been handled amicably at the relevant article's talk page and can be put to bed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Good to know things have been resolved amicably, Rosguill like you rightfully stated the Are you new to this, or have you just not been challenged to do things the way the documentation states before? was what I found to be very disrespectful and condescending. In any case all looks well now. Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review my article

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Feda Almaliti neutrality flag

Hello! I'd first like to thank you very much for reviewing the Feda Almaliti page. I greatly appreciate it. I saw you have disputed the neutrality of the article. However, you have not pointed to specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies on the talk page. I'd like to address the issues and would appreciate your specific commentary as to why you have flagged this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednikki (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rednikki, the article gives a lot of attention to various opinions held by Almaliti, but mostly cites primary and otherwise non-independent sources to support them. There was one claim in particular that I flagged with that was clearly both non-neutral and not supported by the provided source, but I think that a lot of the content about Alamaliti's perspectives is not currently supported by citations that justify its inclusion, even where it is verifiable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill I have corrected the specific citation in question. Please review when you have a chance. --Rednikki (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Rednikki, I think that the article still has due weight issues; if we can only cite a specific opinion of Almaliti's to an article she wrote, we probably shouldn't be including it in the Wikipedia article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerns....

Heya, I'm concerned about this user who you recently granted afc reviewer rights to. May I inquire as to why? We routinely deny people who meet the bare minimum criteria but this editor had no mainspace activity aside from vandalism reverts and no content work, but somehow are able to determine what meets our inclusion and what doesn't? I have serious concerns about their judgement and was shocked to see how new they were and being granted certain sensitive rights. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill didn't grant me AfC rights. I have had experience in AfD and am going through the NPP school with Rosguill. I'm more concerned about some of the articles you've marked as reviewed. Eyebeller 00:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, unless you have specific diffs in question, please retract the allegation against Praxidicae. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahmed Kamal (scientist) was reviewed by them which doesn't meet WP:GNG. Eyebeller 01:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, that article was actually nominated for deletion by Praxidicae and was kept following the AfD, do your homework better next time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't show up in the log for some reason. Eyebeller 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, IIRC I believe I granted a trial NPP run based on a good AfD track record and withdrew it following a questionable call later the same day, after which they enrolled in NPPSCHOOL with me. From looking at the AfC edit history, it looks like Primefac was the one who added them to AfC. They've been doing ok at NPPSCHOOL but there's been some issues with identifying neutrality issues and unfamiliar sources. Looking at the issues you raised on their talk page, the copyvio is a false positive, although the other two articles are indeed questionable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There are far more but I'm just curious also how a user with no demonstrable mainspace experience even got either right to begin with...combined with their combative behavior when questioned is more concerning. I've also heard no complaints about my reviewing at NPP or AFC, so it's news to me.GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, they had a good AfD record and a decent if not terribly challenging CSD record, so I conferred a trial run on a short leash. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Let me explain to you. To be honest, I'm pissed off. I've had a couple of messages like yours in the past few days and a rollercoaster in the past month or so, maybe a bit less. I was finally thinking I've got the hang of this after accepting a few articles which no one complained about and which were marked as patrolled. I thoroughly reviewed this recent accept's sources and per my training and understanding they pass WP:GNG. I had no doubt about that from the FC they set up to that Guardian source. However, that's my understanding, maybe they don't. So when you complained, you really annoyed me. It's not you specifically, just a general complaint like that. Maybe you're right. If articles that I accept get deleted even after training maybe I shouldn't be reviewing but should just stick to counter-vandalism which is what I do best. Eyebeller 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Let me explain to you. To be honest, I'm pissed off. I've had a couple of messages like yours in the past few days and a rollercoaster in the past month or so, maybe a bit less. is an indication that you should listen to the content of the message. If you are good at anti-vandalism, do that and get some mainspace experience in the mean time, then go back to reviewing. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should just get off Wikipedia since no-one wants me here? Eyebeller 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That's called wP:PRAM and no one is saying that. Being able to take constructive criticism and reflect on it is important for editing here and also holding important rights. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's very obvious that AfC isn't for me, I'll go and disable the scripts now (again). Eyebeller 01:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Per my training at NPPSCHOOL I am strongly sure that Abba Bichi meets WP:GNG. Eyebeller 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My point is that any time you are questioned about how they meet it, you obfuscate by throwing out WP:ESSAY pages but haven't identified a single source which meets any criteria. Constructive criticism is how you gain experience here, and considering your lack of it, I'd advise you to engage people with actual answers instead of pushing it off to essays you don't understand yourself. I have serious doubts about your judgement when combined with your complete lack of experience with content in mainspace. This isn't just about Bichi. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And your response here is even more concerning since you don't understand in the slightest how the review process for NPP or AFC works. I added a UDP tag. I did not review it for suitability. A review does not mean "everything is fine and dandy." GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary is wrong

You removed me from the AFC reviewer list “by request”. I did not request that! Eyebeller 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, you stated an intent to stop doing AfC reviews, which is equivalent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I also stated an intent to do NPP which you easily brushed off. Eyebeller 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eyebeller: will I just indef you instead for tedentious editing ? Would that be easier, or are you going to wise the fuck up ? Nick (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah. You wouldn’t indef me as you know you wouldn’t be an administrator anymore and you would cause harm to Wikipedia. Eyebeller 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I've indefinitely blocked Eyebeller for disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Politburo

I promise I will expand those articles this weekend to meet Wikipedia criteria :) --Ruling party (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party, ok, but please consider reverting your current changes until you're ready to expand the articles more significantly. Otherwise, these articles are just going to sit in the back of the new pages queue, and there's a good chance that another new page reviewer will come along and complain about this to you all over again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Plant stub notability

I'm somewhat surprised by this note of yours on Starzoner's talk page. Doesn't it run counter our long-standing accepted practice of "properly described taxon -> notable"? (aka WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES) Frankly, if I found a valid species stub with a notability template I would remove the template without a second thought, so this statement makes me do a solid double-take. There's a case to be made that the current guideline needs a workover, and I think that would be a valuable discussion to have; and another thing is how beneficial it is to for an editor to keep pumping out these stubs, especially if they need so much checking up on. But as for the current point in time, I have a feeling you may be out of synch with notability practices as well as NPP practices on this one? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, I don't think I'd actually seen WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES; I'm happy to defer if pressed, but something seems a bit off with accepting articles with only one reference that has almost no information about a subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the general stance is that in terms of our main watchwords - notability and verificability - the process of describing a taxon, and having it accepted by the various authorities that have a say in the matter, ensures that the required coverage exists, both primary and secondary (thanks to ICZN). I can say that I've never seen one of these deleted at AfD, where they do pop up every so often courtesy of inexperienced nominators - here's the most recent incumbent. I'm not a fan of these one-ref stubs, but they will not be deleted, so I think the template is kind of pointless. Anyway, that's enough of me trying to teach my granny to suck eggs :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

	Celebration~!
	Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

kindly adopt me.

Hello, i have seen your name in the adoptees list, i am mutahir from kashmir and i am interested in adding kashmiri notable people to the wiki, i have been told that i require an adoption and i think i might be able to learn a lot from you, you can give me daily tasks so that i get complete hold over wikipedia editing and policies. i have made a lot of mistakes in my past in wikipedia and i don't want to repeat them ever, so thats why i am looking for guidance. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hums4r, I'm afraid I can't commit to taking you on as a student right now, as I don't think our interests overlap sufficiently. I would suggest that you get a bit more experience working with improving existing articles before you set off on trying to write new ones from scratch. Wikipedia:Task Center is a great way to find articles that need different kinds of editing work, and is organized based on difficulty. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you for your response, i will surely look onto it. Hums4r (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of redirect

Hi, you deleted Blood grouping and crossmatching last year as a result of this RFD (which I started). However, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to restore it, because there's now an appropriate target for it at Blood compatibility testing. I could recreate it myself but that seems unfair to the original creator. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Spicy, that's quite considerate of you.  Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Spicy (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Blankenbaker

I was actually in the process of creating a UTP for the user who added that copyrighted material, hoping they would stick around and learn how to write a proper bio. Not sure why you did a G12 ^{Meant redirect. 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)} The article in the queue has had issues since 22:32, 5 August 2008 - I start working on a few of the redirects/backlog, and wham - editors are doing stuff to my work before I even finish. I'll just back off - I've got some new articles to work on. Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, not sure what you're saying here. I saw the G12 tag you placed and revdel'd accordingly _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant redirect because I was going to use that G12 to demonstrate the problem to Help2Educate, and possibly work with them in creating a proper article for Blankenbaker. Can't you read my mind? 🤣 I just finished creating the UTP for Help2Educate, and added the Welcome template when your redirect flashed on my screen. I was a little thrown off balance because the ink was still wet on the paper and things happened rather quickly - it's a reflex from my old publishing days. I'm a little slow when working at NPP because I'm usually multi-tasking and have a plan, which requires my intense focus. I'm usually more concerned about CSD's not getting tended to fast enough. I apologize if my tone came off too matter-of-factly...which helps explain why I typically use emojis, and have even customized a few templates, like ^[stretch], Just curious..., and  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough, the latter of which I probably deserve right now. Atsme 💬 📧 22:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, no worries, I wasn't offended just confused, and now you've cleared that up. As far as teaching the editor in question, I would think that the revdel'd history is an equivalent lesson to a G12, no? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, provided we can avoid getting trapped in Groundhog Day with repeated removals of the redirect. Uh oh, have I become overly systematic with my routines, or worse, have I become Rain Man?!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Dear Rosguill. The notificaton you left on my Talk page says: If you have clarification questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

A severe punishment like a ban requires strong evidence. Would you mind clarifying the following issues? I'm considering an appeal and so it would be helpful to understand the reasoning behind your decision before I do that.

1. What was your reason for ignoring my requests to provide evidence in support of the allegations? Example: I'd like to know on what grounds people support or reject complaints.(...) If anyone has questions they're welcome on my Talk page. [19]. The unsubstantiated allegations continued even after your action. My reference to Wikipedia policy went unheeded too.[20]. One commenter simply linked to definitions of concepts, not to diffs, others didn't provide any diffs or diffs that did not support the allegations.
2. Please explain why my rebuttals were not taken into consideration? Due process would require an impartial hearing of both sides and scrutiny of the evidence provided by both sides. In my "detailed response" and several comments I've provided evidence of several falsehoods in the complaint.[21][22][23][24] Irrefutable evidence of falsehoods and manipulations trumps language issues, I would think.
3. Would you please provide diffs for these statements: Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. And: Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC .... Please explain "improper". Improper suggests "unwarranted", "uncivil", "insincere" and/or "lacking evidence." I can't judge this without specific information.
4. What was the reason for accepting the case? The ANI complaint was basically about three minor content disputes. Most of the other comments posted by the accuser were also content discussions that belong on the article's Talk page (including incidents that were actually resolved by me compromising). The alleged behavioral issues were either frivolous (even the filing of an Arbcom request supported by 25 diffs was listed as a behavioral issue); or they were old and already dealt with; or were gathered from discussions on other editors' Talk pages rather than the article's Talk page; or were simply invented. In my comments I've provided detailed evidence for several falsehoods in the complaint, see point 2. Those are violations of WP:IUC. In fact all examples listed as rude or uncivil - except 2C - were violated in this case by the accusing parties.
5. Was there a reason for not treating everyone as equals? Most of the comments posted by the filing editor and by others contained personal attacks, some more severe than anything I've ever been accused of, e.g. [25][26].
6. I'm curious to learn why practically every item on the ANI advice list was ignored: [27]. Care to explain?
7. I'm still trying to get my head around the giant leap from I think that this may be closed without action. to: It seems my last comment calling for a close was premature. and immediately issuing a ban. This needs more explaining than the two diffs you provided which turned out to be a difference of opinion about a content issue. Would you mind clarifying and responding to my explanation, copied here: [28]

Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni

1. Uninvolved editors evaluating a dispute are not as a rule required to provide diffs to back up their assessments of the situation as it stands, particularly when evidence had already been provided. You characterization of allegations as unsubstantiated is at odds with my reading of Talk:In Praise of Blood.
2. Rebuttals were unnecessary, as I had read through the talk page discussion and formed my opinions based on that discussion (as well as the ArbCom case filing), rather than based on HoC's specific accusations.
3. This list is not exhaustive, but I think is illustrative
   1. [29], insults directed at HoC
   2. [30], sarcasm and insults directed at Buidhe
   3. [31], sarcasm directed at HoC
   4. [32], responding to repeated requests for sources with the same source that did not back up the claim for which sources were requested.
4. I think that the phrase "accepting the case" is not really an accurate description of how ANI works generally or of my participation in this discussion specifically, but to answer the main point of your question, because I was looking for ANI cases that needed additional input from an uninvolved admin and this was the oldest discussion that I felt like I could help with.
5. HoC's behavior was taken into account, and was the reason that I called for the case to be closed without action at certain points, where it seemed like you could amicably resolve the content disputes and go back to editing constructively. I changed my mind about this after seeing the continued discussion at Talk:In Praise of Blood on January 14th and 15th, and after re-reading the original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation first against buidhe and later against HoC.
6. Believe me, I'm as frustrated that this advice was ignored as well.
7. HoC asked you for a source that stated that double genocide was the main topic of the book. You provided a source that stated that the book rehabilitates double genocide theory. Had this been the only instance, or even one of a few instances, of failing to cooperate appropriately it would not have been a big deal. But as an example of continued behavior, coupled with a sarcastic jab, even after being blocked for personal attacks and knowing full well that an ANI discussion related to this behavior was ongoing, it made it clear that you are not able to collaborate on this subject matter on Wikipedia at this time.

I'll note as well that my notice to you on your talk page was intended to invite questions regarding the scope and the enforcement of the ban, not an invitation to relitigate the ANI case. I decided to actually respond to these questions in the hopes that they can put the matter to rest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, very enlightening but also a little disturbing, unfortunately. Allow me to respond:

1. Which evidence was provided? And I mean evidence, not allegations.
2. Here you admit that my evidence was not taken into account, because you had already formed your opinion. This was obvious - nobody took it into account - but raises serious questions about fair play.
3. The previous ANI closed on 22 December. The first two of your diffs are from before that date. This means that they were already dealt with and you're in fact re-opening an old case. The second ANI was about other issues and other "evidence". Nevertheless, you might want to consider this information:
   1. Two important things you've overlooked: The remark: the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus. referred to an agreemnt we made on EdJohnston's Talk page. but this agreement was suddenly abandoned without a word of warning.[33]. The other remark was wrong, I admit, but it was made in the spirit of other Talk page posts that addressed me in the same manner, such as: ...if you want your POV to be represented on Wikipedia you would be better off publishing your own review on the book.[34] Or: If you can't correctly understand talk page posts that then perhaps you should try editing Wikipedia in a different language.[35] Or: your clumsy methods repeatedly violate WP:POV and WP:BLP.[36] And so on.
   2. This is actually a civil explanation of what the field of genocide studies encompasses. There's no sarcasm in it anywhere. The response to it was, however, a perfect example of sarcasm, see:[37]
   3. No sarcasm intended. You're reading something into it. Besides, I've explained this exchange already. I hope you're not implying I'm being dishonest over this.
   4. ...the same source that did not back up the claim That's your POV, not a fact.
4. So you were just a passer-by? May I ask if you have any relevant knowledge of the topic, or about complaint procedures?
5. ... original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation Did I? Don't forget that there was editing activity going on at the same time. You don't see that on the Talk page of course but is part of the discussion. Editing can be done in a manner to spite others. What you see on the Talk page is an effect of that. When HoC arrived at the scene they were aggressive, accusing me of biased editing and saying the article was turned into an "attack page". This attitude never changed. They also use framing language, ascribing opinions and intentions to me which I don't have. That's very suggestive to outsiders. For instance: Saflieni, meanwhile, does not want the article to discuss RPF war crimes Find such a casual remark a hundred times and you'll swear it's the truth.
6. You could have applied a few.
7. Vidal's explanation is very clear. Not sure why you insist on this point. Besides, Colette Braeckman says the same thing: "Throughout the stories and elements taken from reports written for the ICTR, a common thread appears, an increasingly obvious intention: to lead the reader to conclude that another genocide was carried out in Rwanda and then in Congo, that of the Hutus and potential opponents, even Tutsis, and this for the sole benefit of the combatants from Uganda, these former refugees eager to recover their land and to exercise unchallenged power." (Au fil des récits et des éléments extraits des rapports rédigés à l’intention du TPIR, un fil rouge apparaît, une intention de plus en plus évidente : mener le lecteur à conclure qu’un autre génocide a été mené au Rwanda puis au Congo, celui des Hutus et des opposants potentiels fussent ils Tutsis, et cela au seul bénéfice des combattants venus d’Ouganda, ces anciens réfugiés désireux de récupérer leurs terres et d’exercer un pouvoir sans partage.)

Ironically, the part of Vidal's article that you used for you interpretation was actually quoted in the IPOB article (different context though) and deleted by HoC with this (sarcastic) edit summary: Association fallacy. Many murderers like pizza but this "fact" does not belong in the article about pizza. [38] Saflieni (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Saflieni, I don't have time to rehash the ANI in this level of detail. You're going to have to look for advice elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Edmond J. Safra

Dear Rosguill, you very kindly left a message on my talk page. I have since followed your recommendations. Do you have any other advice to share with me? I would like to take every opportunity to improve my draft Draft:Edmond J. Safra Foundation. Thank you very much for your help! --TychéS19 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

TychéS19, I would follow the advice last left on the draft by an AfC reviewer, namely reformatting the article to comply with WP:MOS and ensuring that it doesn't include any non-neutral content. In order to help out AfC reviewers, I would also recommend identifying the WP:THREE best citations for establishing the subject's notability on the talk page so that a reviewer will be able to review the page more efficiently. Once you've done that, go ahead and submit the article for review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a reviewer on these two pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBK_Partners

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAG_(investment_firm)

Hi. I'm looking for a reviewer for these two pages. If you have time would you mind reviewing and assigning a wikiproject rating to them if applicable?

Imcdc (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Imcdc, the articles are in the new pages queue and will be reviewed in due time, please be patient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Weird AfD has been up for 3 weeks, something is busted?

Cyberbot said that this hadn't been transcluded right. Can you or a stalker figure out what is wrong and make it right? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, hm, I'm not sure what's going on and I am not super familiar with the AfD listings...looking through a search history, it seems like the AfD is listed in today's log, but I don't see any record of having ever been listed in a prior log. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry to bother you outside your expertise. Let it just be a sign that I think of you as knowing lots. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, thanks, haha. There's a solid chance that someone else stalking this page does know better, so it may yet prove useful. That having been said, given that it does appear to be transcluded to today's, presumably it can be closed normally in a week's time regardless of whatever the underlying issue was? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, User Fasterenergie is a sockpuppet of Noname_JR. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Faycal.09, this is not the appropriate place to file a sockpuppet report, please follow the instructions at WP:SPI. Additionally, you need evidence to motivate the report, or it will be dismissed out of hand. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Staus quo on Carlo Bonomi

The status quo for the last 10+ years for Carlo Bonomi was to exist as a standalone article. You should nominate it for WP:AfD if you feel it is not deserving of that status. Replacing it with a redirect, unilaterally, is not consistent with policy. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuzheado, replacing it with a redirect is a perfectly acceptable WP:BOLD edit; now that you've contested it, an AfD would be the next step. Your prior edit to the page looked like a rote anti-vandalism response to the IP's poorly justified edits, which is why I felt that my approach was still appropriate given the circumstances. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

92.23.33.134

Can user:92.23.33.134 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent,  Done for 31 hours, although in the future I'd appreciate it if you could include a link to their contributions and a description of why you think a block is appropriate when requesting it, as that would reduce the work that I need to do in responding to your request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

2018 Northeast Conference Tournament

I reverted it back to the actual article because it's better to have that than just a redirect. There are specific articles for other years, so I created an article for the 2018 edition. It fits in with the other ones, so it should not have been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ajax.amsterdam.fan, as I've already explained at your talk page, the article was deleted following a consensus at AfD; in order to surmount that, you're going to need stronger citations to establish the subject's notability. I'd suggest that you read through our notability guidelines to get a better understanding of what is expected for articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ação Games

In this 2019 diff you acknowledged that sources exist, but to this day, no RS have been cited. How do we know that what's written is compliant with WP:OR? I'm of the mind that unsourced articles should be sent to draft space rather than left in main space with unverifiable material. Add to that, an IP reverting my removal of what appears to be an irrelevant section titled Review and all it contains is a wikilink to that unsourced article. It doesn't make any sense to me so maybe I'm not aware of something I should be? Atsme 💬 📧 14:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, the ptWiki article has this source, which currently isn't much help but at one point had a video about the magazine's history; you can still read the description calling it one of the most beloved and oldest gaming publications in Brazil. I'd be inclined to trust UOL on this as a NEWSORG for what appears to be an uncontroversial topic. Regarding the IP's edit, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that such a review actually exists, but without a proper citation (and without any actual information about the review) they're obviously going about this the wrong way. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll ping Masem for his thoughts since he is well versed in the gaming stuff and might be able to help find some RS we can use. At this point, it's just not compliant with MOS or PAGs to simply create a section, call it "Review" and then add a WikiLink to unsourced article. The editor who reverted me should at least try to fix the problem - find some RS and write an actual review. Don't you think? Atsme 💬 📧 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, yeah I agree, the IP is out of line. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not coming up with much more to substantiate this article (and that's possibly due to language barrier issues). This probably should be draft or the like until better sourcing can be used to confirm it. --Masem (t) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

2018 Northeast Conference Tournament

Ok, I understand why you think it should be deleted, but I still don't understand why it should be. There are other articles for a specific tournament, why is the 2018 one being deleted? --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ajax.amsterdam.fan, please don't create a new section every time you leave a message: use : to indent and leave a message in one of the existing sections. The last time the article was created, it was nominated for deletion for not meeting the general notability guideline; you can read the discussion where this was determined here. The argument that you are currently making is called "other stuff exists", which generally doesn't hold much water on Wikipedia because we are a volunteer project and our rules are inconsistently applied due to a lack of volunteers able to apply them. I would suggest that you direct further questions to the teahouse, our forum for helping new editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, why is the 2018 getting a redirect, I still don't understand. It is better to have information there instead of a redirect.

Ajax.amsterdam.fan, we are not supposed create articles about topics unless there are enough sources to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines. The article was challenged for falling short of the general notability guideline, the core part of our notability guidelines, and was deleted following an AfD discussion where all participating editors agreed that there wasn't enough coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed deletion of Dhindoora

If I can bring some reliable sources that will the deletion process will be stoppedJogesh 69 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Jogesh 69

Jogesh 69, they need to be reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, i.e. enough to meet WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am saying the same. Just give me my answer. Whether the deletion process will be stopped or not after bringing some reliable sources Jogesh 69 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Performing a split relist/delete with XFD closer and a bundled discussion

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_27#List_of_weapons_and_gadgets_from_the_Ratchet_&_Clank_series. There was clear consensus for the first redirect to be deleted, but the second redirect was not part of the original nomination, and no consensus had formed yet for it, so I wanted to relist the second redirect from the bundled discussion. The method of performing the delete-one-relist-other that I came up with is very clunky and might turn out to be confusing down the line with the discussion. Is there a better way to handle that sort of situation? Hog Farm _Talk 19:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, when I'm in that scenario, I usually just relist and include a relisting comment that explains my assessment of the situation (e.g. "we seem to have a consensus for deletion for X but it's not clear what to do with Y"). It's not perfect, but no one's complained yet so it seems like a workable solution to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Move (name-change) to article

Hi, Rosguill. When I tried submitting a move for the article Al-Eizariya, which we are trying to change its name to "Bethany," I went through the usual steps described under Requested controversial moves. The problem that I encountered was that there exists a Redirect in the name that we wish to use, namely "Bethany." According to the instructions given on the above page, "Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves." How do I go about alleviating this problem? I have followed the procedure so far, having written this on the article's Talk-Page: {{subst:Al-Eizariya|Bethany|Since this is the English Wikipedia, it seems natural that we use here the well-known English name for this village, which is "Bethany" (mentioned in the New Testament), rather than use the lesser known Arabic name transliterated into English, seeing that it is NOT known by most English speakers. The English transliteration of the Arabic name, however, can and will be used as a redirect to the same article.}}, but nothing happened. Your help is needed.Davidbena (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, I'm pretty sure that the instruction of Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves. means that you can't request a move for a redirect; requesting them to a redirect should be fine. As for the template text, it looks like you accidentally wrote subst:AlEizariya instead of subst:requested move. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Some guidance

Hi there! I saw that you were listed as an available adopter, and your interests seemed a lot like mine (especially in the language department), so I was hoping you could help me with some direction as to how to become a better contributor. Eventually I'd like to do something like the New Page Patrol and get some real translation work in, but right now I'm helping out with the cleanup backlog to get a feel for how to correct the most common errors. There's a lot of edits I've been making that I'm like 80% confident in, but that feel just a little off, and I think having someone experienced to bounce things off of—and that knows the best practices for stuff that comes up a lot (e.g., finding the most common translation for a foreign term)—would be really helpful.

–LogStar100 (talk)

20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

LogStar100, yeah I'd be willing to help out, feel free to ask me questions when you run into issues. Is there anything you're struggling with right now? One thing that I would suggest is that while your signature looks cool, the custom alignment formatting may make it difficult to identify your posts in ongoing discussions, so I would suggest changing it to something that renders right after your comments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

Rosguill, thanks so much! There are three issues that come to mind that I've encountered recently:

1. On the Grotrian-Steinweg page, there's a section about "Admirers" which doesn't feel entirely within the realm of encyclopedic content, but which has also been included since before it was awarded as a "good article." What would be the reasoning for its inclusion in the article?

2. How would I best go about asking for help in translating a particular term? For example, the Korean article for College admissions in South Korea makes use of the term "비교내신제," and my limited Korean has made it hard to source the most common translation of the term into English, so who would I reach out to to figure that out?

3. The Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 page was at one point under the name "Herpes B virus" (in line with all other translations of the page), but was then changed to its current formal name. In all the sources I could find, Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 is always listed as the secondary name, next to "monkey B virus" or just "B virus" alone. The issue is that it's a relatively even split between including and excluding the "monkey" portion, and the official name is a nice enough fallback that it might be better to keep it. At the same time, B virus already redirects to Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1, so it wouldn't be a loss of clarity to move the page, but it's also not quite as common as "monkey B virus." Would it be better to keep it the way it is, or move it to one of the simpler, more common names?

4. Finally, all of these revolve around not having any other opinions on the topic; where should I post things like these so that I can hear what other Wikipedia users think? –LogStar100 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

LogStar100,

1. I agree that the Admirers section doesn't seem appropriate (I also note that the GA reviewer was blocked a few months after that review was completed). I think that you would be justified in WP:BOLDly removing the section.
2. I'm afraid we don't have much in the way of formal resources for that. The best you could do would be to ask on the article's talk page, and at the noticeboard at the relevant WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Korea.
3. Looks like the article was boldly moved in 2019, and you've already started an RM discussion on the talk page. I don't really have much of an opinion on the underlying issue, but an RM is appropriate if you think that the name should be changed so you're on the right track.
4. You should always start on the talk page of the affected article, with the next step being a relevant WikiProject (if the article is low traffic, you can post a discussion notice at the WikiProject from the get go). Depending on the nature of the issue, there may be centralized noticeboards related to the issue, such as the reliable sources noticeboard, the original research noticeboard, or the neutrality noticeboard. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of SDSU Sports Deck for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SDSU Sports Deck 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/SDSU Sports Deck 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.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving page to Draft (Draft:Bamboo_Group_(company))

Hello Rosguill! Thanks you for reviewing my article (“Bamboo Group (company)”) First of all I want to thank you very much for for your interest and participation. I am a beginner and any advice would be useful to me! I really want to make it better, but you have not pointed to any specific issues. When you will have a bit of time, would you mind to give me your specific commentary or advice about what needs to be done? Maybe you have any other commentary for me? I would be happy to use every opportunity to improve my project. Have a wonderful day! Cartifdet (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cartifdet, at this point, please just comply with the COI disclosure request that I left on your talk page (and please do reply on your talk page, rather than here, so that other editors will see it as well and won't think you're ignoring the disclosure request), after which you can submit the draft for review by clicking the blue button in the AfC template at the top of the draft. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill! I did everything as you said, Thank you for your advice! If it doesn't bother you too much, could you please take a look at another my draft to point me out to its problems? It is a large company that used to be an Estonian government agency. I have looked into your links about Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability policies, (as well as notability guidelines), but I would be extremely grateful for at least a quick glance. Thanks in advance! Cartifdet (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cartifdet, I don't have time right now to do a particularly thorough review; at a glance the article looks ok, but I'm not familiar with the sources you cited so I can't assess notability very well without putting in a lot more research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi! A friendly question.

Hello! I just created my account and was trying to figure out what to do and I came across the Adopt-a-user page and I saw you there. Are you still taking on new apprentices? I'd love to start giving back but I don't know where to start! I'm a fast learner and will pull my weight. Please let me know. Thank you. WanderingSeer (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WanderingSeer, what sort of editing are you interested in? If you aren't sure where you want to help out, I would suggest checking out the WP:Task center, which describes and provides links to a whole bunch of different types of Wikipedia work of varying levels of difficulty. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really too sure haha. I looked through some of the tutorials and tried reading up on some of the policies and decided to just look at recent edits and see if I could find anything worth editing. It's been kinda hard because i'm not sure what i'm looking for. I've also just been looking for vandalism too. WanderingSeer (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WanderingSeer, hm, well to get you started, here are some suggestions.

If you like doing behind the scenes work or love thinking about how best to sort information, try out Categorization tasks

If you're reasonably confident in your writing skills, try out Copy editing tasks

If you like doing research and investigation, try out Fact-checking tasks

You can find links for all of these tasks at the WP:Task center. Feel free to try out all of the above if they strike your fancy. Anti-vandalism work is also worth trying too, although I generally recommend that new editors do more than just anti-vandalism, because while anti-vandalism is important, it doesn't teach you as much about editing articles well, just how to spot the most extreme of bad-faith contributors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go take a look then. Thank you. WanderingSeer (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nikhil Kamath

Hi User:Rosguill I'm here because of your direct review at Draft:Nikhil Kamath. I may not be an expert in this but yes I just declared Wikipedia COI WP:COI on the draft's talk page and also at my user page. I apologize for not declaring it in the beginning. I belong to the organization and attempting to make this page by adhering to most of the Wikipedia norms such as WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and at the same time keeping it completely neutral WP:NPOV. This required a pretty amount of reading at my end so that I can stay as much close to Wikipedia norms. I just submitted the draft for your 2nd review. Could you assist please? -Syncronyte (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

responded on other editor's talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Aggressive user

Hi User:Rosguill , I hope you are well during this harsh times. I would like to ask for your help. I have the feeling that some users from The Italian Wikipedia are trying to take down the page Giovanni Morassutti due to some sort of "spite". One user in particular is using aggressive tones questioning the meaning of cultural entreprenrship, reliable sources and taking down sections. What do you reccomend in this kind of scenarios ? Please let me know when you can. Many thanks--Doratig (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Doratig, at a glance, the sources that Praxidicae has been removing are in fact quite poor, an assortment of blogs and PR sites. Right now I would suggest making a case for the subject's notability at AfD. Please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors; it is highly unlikely that they are motivated by "spite" as you suggest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Rosguill, thanks for your reply. The reason why I have mentioned the word "spite" is because in my opinion the user is using aggressive tones in his comments and, since there has been recently a discussion on the itwikiquote about the activity of the subject as a cultural entrepreneur, I have founded strange that this nomination for deletion of the article on the en.wikipedia came up just now. The article has been reviewed by you three years ago and by now it is also present on several other wikipedias. To be honest with you, sometimes I have the feeling that on the italian wikipedia they have added their own criteria which is not always easy to understand. With that being said, I do agree with you that the sources been removed by Praxidicae were in fact quite poor therefore I have updated the article by adding in depth coverage reliable third party sources of the subject. I was wondering if you would be so kind to find the time to take a look at the article and eventually partecipate in the case. I would really appreciate your feedback.--Doratig (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Doratig, I'll take a look at the sources myself at some point in the next few days, but you should probably make a case yourself at the AfD first. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Doratig (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Hi Rosguill, when you say make a case on AfD do you mean open another discussion or just add my comment to the one that has been open ? Also, my recent edits on article Giovanni Morassutti are being undone even if I have added better sources to the article. In this case shall I just wait to avoid edit war ? The user is asking me to revert my last edit. Don´t really know what to do --Doratig (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Doratig, further changes to the article should be raised on the talk page, but right now I would focus on the AfD. I think your first comment got off on the wrong foot. You want to make a concise case for notability by providing links to 3-4 sources that demonstrate significant, independent coverage in a reliable source. Most of the arguments you've made in the AfD thus far are quite frankly, irrelevant.

I've looked through the sources you presented to me back in 2018, and honestly I'm inclined to agree with the delete arguments at this time. I think I may have been too charitable when I first reviewed the article (I was quite new at the time), and do not really see sufficiently significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

They've now been globally locked along with 12+ other accounts for a 3 year long xwiki mass spamming campaign. CUPIDICAE💕 19:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, thanks for the update. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Labiodental ejective affricate

@Rosguill: Hi, what kinds for sources are you talking about? i gave 3 sources on the page what else do you want? some of the related pages dont even have sources in them and this page has 3 AleksiB 1945 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

AleksiB 1945, IIRC, the sources provided in the last version of that article that I looked at only mentioned the labiodental ejective affricate, and did not discuss it in depth. For that level of coverage, it's more appropriate to have coverage of it as part of an article about a more general subject, such as Ejective consonant _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: in depth? there are rarely any sources for those langs and in most of the related pages to this, there are barely sourced and the sources are just phoible AleksiB 1945 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

AleksiB 1945, then as I said, it's more appropriate to add coverage of it to an article like Ejective consonant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your continued work at WP:PERM/NPR, especially when I feel it's too much to go review. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

T-ban violation

Possibly of interest to you: this is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban you imposed here. (While it occurs in a section nominally about appealing the ban, it cannot realistically be construed as part of any appeal.) --JBL (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, I think I've had my fill of that case, but I'm sure other interested parties can find their way to AE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very understandable. --JBL (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The complicated and sophisticated process at AE is beyond my expertise. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, speaking as someone who's read through a few AE cases but never directly participated in one, it shouldn't be that complicated for topic ban violations, you just need to identify the diffs that violate the topic ban. DS-based cases are thornier, but that won't apply here. Granted, once the case is filed you get to deal with a fresh serving of drama, but other than the different the unthreaded discussion layout that's nothing new. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the topic-ban violation is that clear. I think the evidence of continued violation of AGF and NPA is extremely strong, but I feel like an idiot taking this to a third ANI considering how much drama ensued the previous two times and how little benefit emerged from either attempt. I wish there were a better process for dealing with disruptive editors, because these unending attacks are discouraging. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe at some point they'll get bored and go away. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --JBL (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor

Okay, so here we are with the classical immovable object meets irrestistable force argument. The material was removed after years of existing without sourcing. As per WP policy, uncited material may be removed at any time by any person. And as per WP:BURDEN, once uncited material is removed it should not be put back onto WP without reliable sourcing. And against that is the consensus of an RfD. Based on the first two policies, this information should be removed until sourcing is provided. Based on the RfD it was returned to the mainspace. I know the RfD result was without prejudice to AfD, but WP:BURDEN would suggest simply blanking the page. Which is not acceptable. I feel like the android in that episode of Star Trek (Mudd's Women - although the quandary is not in the WP article, which is criminal, since it is the most brilliant thing about that script). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)

Onel5969, in this case, a Google Scholar search shows a fair amount of promising results, enough that I think it would survive an AfD. It's annoying that the initial editor creating the article didn't do their homework, but as far as NPP is concerned, I think that given that there's very little danger of BLP issues, promo content or political disinformation, tagging with {{unreferenced}}, {{sources exist}} should be enough and isn't a huge burden on us from a reviewing perspective. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'm thinking of cutting it down to a bare stub, so that there's not so much unreferenced info. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)