Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atomksk (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 10 May 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article review - awaiting your reponse

Dear Rosguill, thank you for your review of List of fact-finding reports on human rights in North Korea. I have written a more detailed message to you on the talk page of the article. I look forward to your reply there. Thank you! (talk) user:Al83tito 8:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, thank you for your kind response. I left you a follow-up message recently, in the same talk page of that article. Could you please take a look when you have a moment? It should only take a moment or two. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 5:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
(to be more precise, please see there my message dated Nov 1st. Thank you!) (talk) user:Al83tito 5:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm very confused. Did you delete the article I wrote fir Bill Maher's special?? Halfire101 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 2019 IPSC Rifle World Shoot

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

Speedy deletion declined: Jolyon Coy

Hello Rosguill. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jolyon Coy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims coverage in RS, claims having acted in multiple notable films and TV series . Thank you. SoWhy 08:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Nash

Hi Rosguill, I am not happy you're considering the Kelly Nash page for deletion. I have six references on that page, How many more did I need? That's the same number as my Olivia Dekker page and I've been waiting to get approved for two months. I did add that she does host the NHL Version of Quick Pitch. How much more do I have to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightforrm (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwightform: the issue isn't the number of sources, it's their quality. As I wrote in the deletion discussion itself, none of the provided sources cover the subject in-depth; interviews do not count as they are not independent. The MLB.com profile is not independent, as it is affiliated with her employer, and the coverage of her almost getting hit by a baseball is trivial–it says nothing about the subject worth including in an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether or not you find these explanations convincing, I would further suggest that you make any additional comments or discussion on the deletion discussion page, so that other editors can see it to and so that your opinions aren't ignored. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Carnage (comics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carnage (comics). Legobot (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would Appreciate Your Insight

Rosguill, you recently deleted an article I wrote about an entertainment personality/industry innovator named Jeff Beacher. Of course I'm bummed to see it deleted, and frankly, I do not understand why you did it; but I am here to learn and grow and to become a welcomed and valued member of the wiki community. The article I wrote, IMO, was well sourced, honest and seemed to be in-line with similar articles about people like him on this platform. Further, the article was receiving positive support and improvements from several other established wiki editors. Regardless, you clearly felt I did something wrong, and I respect that. I would, however, genuinely appreciate some help/tips to be able to republish it with your suggestions. Hoping to hear from you, and, sincerely, I appreciate the opportunity to get better at this! :-) (side note - I see you're into translations - have you checked out the Pilot ear buds from Waverly? They auto translate langauges into your ear, like real life Babel Fish!) DarthBuffet (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBuffet: thanks for following up on this. Unfortunately I don't remember the specific details of that article. Looking in the deletion logs (Special:Logs), it looks like it was deleted for WP:G11, unambiguous advertising. What this essentially means is that the article 1) was insufficiently neutral in tone and phrasing and 2) largely cited sources that are obviously non-independent or otherwise unreliable. Of these two criteria, the latter is much more important, so let's focus on that. Could you provide me with links to sources you used so that I can reevaluate them? signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: For real, thank you for responding as you have. I am just checking in quickly today, but I will respond more completely tomorrow. Really appreciate your willingness to help me. Back soon! :-) DarthBuffet (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: - I am just sitting down now and responding to a few of the editors who have been helping me with this. One pointed me to the editor who executed the deletion named Anthony Appleyard. It appears that it was, as you accurately predicted, the tone and phrasing of my article that encouraged AA to delete it. However, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to review some of the references I chose (from sources like Entrepreneur Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, BET Online, Forbes, The LA Times, Rolling Stone Magazine, Las Vegas Magazine, New York Times, etc). What is the proper way for me to share some of these links with you? DarthBuffet (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DarthBuffet, If you can just paste links here that would be fine. You can also make them prettier by adding a single bracket before and after the url, so [http://www.google.com] becomes [1]. If we had been having this discussion while the article still existed then it would have been more appropriate to use its talk page, but that's moot. Although, given AA's comments, was a version of the article restored? If so we should continue the conversation there. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Yeah, I was really happy to see he restored my article. I just logged in and saw his reply to me where he said he deleted it because he felt it read like an advertisement (which was in no way my intention); but I was hoping he would have given me some insight so, as I've expressed, I can get better at this and avoid this situation with future articles (I want to keep contributing and editors like you and a few others have made me feel welcomed and supported!). Not sure what I should do now as the article has been restored. I did notice a code that is appearing at the top of the article that I'd love to hide/remove just to make my article look cleaner. Do you think that would be okay? DarthBuffet (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DarthBuffet, I've removed the text you're talking about––that text is the markup for a speedy deletion tag, wrapped in <nowiki> tags so that it doesn't actually add a live tag (I think it's just default when you restore an article). At any rate, looking through the article, the biggest issue is the promotional language. You should avoid phrases like He is credited as creating over $100 million in value for his clients, which read very promotionally. You should also generally avoid listing clients (with the occasional exception of people notable for fashion or other fields where one's clients really are the primary source of notability). It would also be good to cut sentences like As a media personality, Jeff Beacher has been featured on television, radio, newspapers and in magazines from the lead, which says very little about the subject while still coming off as promotional.
As for the sources, part of the problem here is that you actually may have too many sources, most of which are very trivial coverage of the subject (that is to say, it mentions the subject for a sentence or two but does not provide the significant depth necessary for sourcing an article). It's better to have 3 good sources than 20 mediocre ones. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: GAHHHH! This is SO HELPFUL!!! Do you think it would be cool if I went in now and followed your lead and deleted what you suggested, and slimmed down the resources? DarthBuffet (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I deleted the sentences you suggested I removed. I will go through all of the links and follow your lead and trim that down. I really appreciated your comment, "It's better to have 3 good sources than 20 mediocre ones". That is a very good lesson. I had thought the more the better. This is very very helpful and insightful. DarthBuffet (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Rosguill,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again!

Hey there! I noticed that you recently helped curate the article In No Great Hurry 13 Lessons in Life with Saul Leiter and in doing so placed a COI tag on the article. That tag may or may not be appropriate in this instance, but when placing it you are obligated to immediately begin a talk page discussion on those aspects of the article which you feel reflect the conflict of interest of one of its authors and saying what would need changing to get the tag removed— the COI tag is not meant to indicate "Hey, this article has a COI!" it is meant to say, "Hey, this article has a COI and I've explained how to fix it, please see the talk page!". Do you suppose you would be willing to begin that talk page discussion (or else remove the tag)? Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Ramos

Hello. I was surprised to discover tags on the page Darwin Ramos because there is no explanation about it. I do not understand why you did it, but I am here to learn and grow. The article I wrote is well sourced, honest and seemed to be in-line with similar articles about people like him on this platform. Regardless, you clearly felt I did something wrong, and I respect that. I would, however, genuinely appreciate some help to be able to improve it with your suggestions. Hoping to hear from you, and, sincerely, I appreciate the opportunity to get better at this Postulateur (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postulateur, currently all of the citations cited appear to be directly affiliated with the campaign to canonize Ramos and other primary source documents. While this may be useful for supporting certain claims made in the article, they do not contribute to the article's notability; in order for a Wikipedia article to be accepted on a given subject, we need to see that independent sources have taken notice of it and written about it at length. I've seen quite a few of these "canonization in progress" articles and they generally don't survive a deletion review. If and when Ramos is actually canonized (or if you can otherwise find independent sources about him), I would consider notability guidelines to have been met. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, Thank you for your response. I am just a little bit surprised. The sources used are independent because the authors wrote their books before the opening of the cause. At the other hand, the notability of Darwin Ramos is awesome in France since his death, not because the cause of canonization. Postulateur (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, The books used for the article are only biographies. They are historic, not promotion. Postulateur (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Thank U, Next

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thank U, Next. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fanboy & Chum Chum characters

Hi there, I don't plan to revert your redirect here, since I think that content belongs in the main article, but primary sources can absolutely be used for uncontroversial content discerned by watching the primary source. We don't typically need secondary sources for plot descriptions or for cast lists, and for character descriptions. "Luke Skywalker is a young man who works on a moisture farm on Tattooine" doesn't require secondary validation, it's something you can easily verify by watching Star Wars. The General Notability Guideline is a bit of a high bar for article forks as well. If an article gets too large, it's not unreasonable for a fork to be created, and even if there is a general principle that notability is not inherited, I think there's some flexibility there. For instance, if SpongeBob SquarePants is notable, do have to separately prove that an episode list is independently notable? No, probably not. It's part of the notable show and we ran out of space in the main article. Do we have to prove that Season 12 is independently notable? No, probably not. What if S1 got tons of press but S12 didn't--are we going to have incomplete season articles? That doesn't make much sense. Anyway, sometimes we just try to ease large pageloads by distributing the content across various articles. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Mannis

Hello thank you for your review of the Ari Mannis Wiki. I saw you are trying to have it deleted for lack of recognition/sources but I want to help keep this page up as he is a favorite comedian in Los Angeles, opening for Theo Von. I wanted to ask you how you would get it approved. I thought about taking off a lot of the local stuff and shortening it. Thoughts?Romanstuff (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Romanstuff: thanks for following up on this. The issue with the article is that it doesn't have enough citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. If you can find more examples of independent coverage (for example, a profile in a magazine with editorial oversight, but generally not interviews). Once you've found enough such that you think the general notability guideline is met, head over to the actual discussion and let us know what you've found. signed, Rosguill talk 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Muse (disambiguation)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muse (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please...

You redirected Triad International to Adnan Khashoggi, with an edit summary of "redirect to Adnan Khashoggi, company does not appear to meet notability guidelines independent of its owner (WP:ORGCRITE, WP:GNG). Consider adding Triad International related content in a new section of the article about Khashoggi".

Was this redirection discussed anywhere, before you made it? If so, could you point me to that discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: There wasn't a discussion, that was my unilateral decision as a new page patroller based on the sources provided in the article and the lack thereof in my attempted search online. That having been said, the source you found does appear to be a stronger indicator of the subject's notability. signed, Rosguill talk 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Nilüfer Yanya) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Nilüfer Yanya.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Great work on this article and the one about the album!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MainlyTwelve}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nilufer-yanya-miss-universe-album.jpeg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear citations - some guidance appreciated

Hello Rosguill, You recently left a message regarding unclear citation styles on Margaret Doyle (announcer). Many thanks for reviewing it, but I'm puzzled. The citations were either drawn from the National Library of Australia's (NLA) newspaper citations on Trove created specifically for use of historic newspaper content on Wikipedia. The other citations (from memory) were all constructed using Wikipedia's citation template. The NLA are making some changes to their online platform, so I will follow up with them in case it's no longer compliant. But I'm at a loss to understand why citations created using Wikipedia's own template would be a problem. Any guidance would be appreciated. Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal.culture.vulture, thanks for following up on this. Looking at the article right now, virtually all of the citations appear to have broken url values and are displaying error messages in addition to improperly formatted markup text. Is this not the case for you? signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, thanks for replying. When I created the page, there were no errors in either the preview or the published changes. I have a tendency to over reference, something I try to restrain, so take particular care that all is well. When I look at the page now, the majority of the links are broken and there are multiple error messages. A staff member from the National Library has been in contact and will look into it from their end if needed, but that doesn't explain why the problem is evident for citations using Wikipedia's template. As a first step, I'll have a look at my operating system, try editing using different browsers and devices to see if I can narrow it down to my own environment. Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coastal.culture.vulture, looking at the history of the page, it seems everything was fine until Tony1 replaced a bunch of the url content with gibberish? Not sure if that was intentional, they don't look like a vandal. Anyway, just re-add the correct urls from an earlier version of the page and you should be good to go. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, a change by another editor (how ever well meaning) would be a far simpler explanation. I'll replace the urls over the weekend, and keep a close watch on the page in the days that follow. Many thanks for your help with this. I really appreciate it :) Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Reid article

I added links to Guardian articles in the Ben Reid article as you suggested. Leo Sammallahti (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Blackstone Battery Codes, Rosguill.

Mu301 has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Multiple issues.

Please contact Mu301 for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

mikeu talk 06:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mu301: why did you unreview the article? I nominated it for AfD and then marked it reviewed per the flowchart. signed, Rosguill talk 07:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a mistake. I see that it has been now been undone. --mikeu talk 18:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Harbhajan Singh Khalsa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Revolutionary-yiddishland-brossat-klingberg.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael B. Paulkovich

You tagged the article saying "There do not appear to be enough references currently present in this article to demonstrate notability." Looks to me like all facts have accompanying citations, can you be specific as to what more it needs? I'd like to improve it if it really needs to be improved. Thanks. Gagitsel (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gagitsel, notability on Wikipedia is a separate concern from verifiability, although they're obviously related to an extent. While several citations have been provided in the article, they can be sorted into two different categories: 1) citations to articles that are by Paulkovich, as opposed to about Paulkovich, and 2) citations to images of articles about Paulkovich, but without sufficient information (either in the article or in the images) to clearly identify the sources and the authors of these articles. Category 1 does not contribute to notability because they are not independent of the subject, whereas Category 2 could contribute to notability, but without clearer information about the sources, it's difficult-to-impossible to assess whether these sources are reliable, and thus we cannot tell if they contribute to notability or not. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations for notability and verifiability, I'll remove the tag you added if you agree (or you can remove it if you'd like). Thanks! Gagitsel (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gagitsel, thank you for your attempts to provide more sources. Unfortunately, the additional sources you provided appear to suffer from the same problems as the previous ones: two are just examples of things that Paulkovich wrote, and the third is a press release, which is not a reliable source for notability. Instead of these sources, I would suggest looking for reviews of Paulkovich's books. signed, Rosguill talk 23:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons I added links to those articles: (1) the articles provide a brief bio of Paulkovich at the end, thus bolstering verifiability (something you asked for) and (2) the articles demonstrate that he does in fact write for the journals claimed in the WP article, further bolstering verifiability. Gagitsel (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gagitsel, I didn't really ask for verifiability, I asked for citations demonstrating notability. Verifiability is also important, but it's not currently an issue for the article. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of photographers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of photographers. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Germanic peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your close

Can you clarify if the close you made here was for all contestant names? Thank you. Nihlus 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is in relation to an RfP closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC Closure Review for RuPaul's Drag Race. An admin there states that the RfC applies to the birth names of transgender performers — and not that the civilian names of all drag performers are now to be forbidden on Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springhill Avenue shooting 1987

While doing some work for the New Pages Patrol, I came across Springhill Avenue shooting 1987 and I fully agree with the comments you made on that article's talk page. Would you consider an AfD to be in the offing? It seems that the article's author tried to use this not-so-notable incident to write an article on much bigger issues. Note that Springhill Ave. is only mentioned once in the text. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520, an AfD does seem appropriate at this point. Had the initial editor (or someone else interested in writing articles about the Troubles) responded to the original comment, I think we could have gone straight to rename/merge, but I don't really have the knowledge or bandwidth to do that myself so unfortunately deletion seems like the best option. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Seehafer

Hi Rosguill, Thanks for establishing the redirect page. As per your request, I can contact you when I find more comprehensive information about Seehafer to expand on his biography. You also noted a concern that many sources on the original article were self published, but I see no evidence of that—am I missing something? best regards, --JerricaB (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JerricaB, by self-published sources I mean sources that don't have clear editorial boards or policies.
Ok now I understand. I'll keep this in mind as I search further; thanks.--JerricaB (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gavin McInnes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gavin McInnes. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Coral Gardens incident) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Coral Gardens incident.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:WikiLeaks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WikiLeaks. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion Ally Prisock

Hello,

You reviewed an page of mine so I was wondering if you could help me. My page on Ally Prisock has been nominated for deletion. For the life of me I do not understand why as it is sourced and she is a professional soccer player. How do I get an article that has been flagged as Nomination for deletion to not be deleted?

Cheers

@Cetteuqap:, it looks like the reason it's being deleted is because it doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. While you've pointed out several reasons why Prisock may be an important or good player, ultimately she is still a rookie that has not actually played in a professional game (the guideline says that players need to have actually appeared in a game, just being signed to a team is not enough). Until she has actually done so (or until you can find additional coverage of her such that she meets WP:GNG), she doesn't meet notability guidelines. While it's extremely likely based on your description that she will meet the guidelines at some point in the future, that hasn't happened yet, and it is not Wikipedia's place to write about things that are likely to happen. In other words, you wrote the article WP:TOOSOON. I would suggest asking that the article be draftified or userfied–that way while it will still be removed from the live encyclopedia mainspace, you won't lose your work, and if/when she does finally play in a pro game you can publish the article. signed, Rosguill talk 16:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

Hi,

I've just been notified that the page 2019 Dutch provincial elections has been reviewed by yourself. What does it mean for the article? and what does the reviewing process consists in? I'm curious, I know, but I've added a lot of numbers on the page and I'm afraid that one of them might be wrong (though I double-checked). Kahlores (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kahlores, you can read about the full reviewing process here, but a short overview is that reviewing is something we do for new articles and just means that the article has been checked for 1. violations of Wikipedia policies (copyright violations, WP:ATTACK pages, violations of WP:BLP, etc.) and 2. notability, i.e. verifying that the article's subject has received enough real-world coverage to justify a Wikipedia article. It does not mean that we've double checked every single claim in the article, although reviewers are generally expected to read through the article and flag it with relevant templates if there are any issues. Once an article has been reviewed, it's released to search engines for indexing (i.e. it becomes searchable). We actually have a rather long backlog right now, so if this sounds interesting to you I'd encourage you to apply!
All that having been said, I actually didn't review 2019 Dutch provincial elections, but rather the redirect you created, Dutch provincial elections, 2019. That's a much faster process, where basically we just check to make sure that the redirect isn't actively misleading or harmful and then approve it, change the target, or nominate it for deletion as appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 02:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I always wondered but was afraid to ask, and didn't know where exactly the reviewing process was organized. I may apply, but elections are my only real domain expertise, so we'll see. Kahlores (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kahlores, for what it's worth you do learn a lot on the job. In hindsight, I was totally unqualified when I was first given NPP permissions, but now I'm comfortable reviewing new articles on most topics. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choral Synagogue (Drohobych)

Hello, some weeks ago you stated that this article lacks sufficient citations. I gave a statement about that on the relevant talk-page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Choral-Synagogue_(Drohobych)), but nobody seems to bother. Maybe you would be so kind to tell me which statement is unsourced (please read the given source before you answer).--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wanfried-Dublin, I marked it as needing more sources because the entire Architecture section has no footnotes, and 2 sources is essentially the minimum amount of sources for a page to meet notability requirements, especially if one of the sources is not available online and thus of minimal use to readers (offline sources are very much allowed, but it's nice to be able to provide online literature for readers as well). What's more, the Ukrainian language version of the article has many sources, so it didn't seem like a tall order to request additional citations.
Having read your comment on the talk page, I would just add that you shouldn't take the "Low importance" thing personally or let that get you discouraged––"low" is the default rating when assigning an article to a project, so unless I'm personally very familiar with a given subject I generally leave that as the set rating. What's more, many WikiProjects are aware of how this works, and specifically go over new articles listed as low in order to update them with a more accurate evaluation, although that may not be the case if the articles you work on are not supported by active WikiProjects. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, thanks for your response. But what causes some problems is your statement 2 sources is essentially the minimum amount of sources for a page to meet notability requirements. You may have noticed that I work on the German wikipedia as well, and there I have created more articles on (Ukrainian) synagogues, which I would like to create in English as well. For some synagogues there is only 1 reliable source, which are the books: Heaven’s Gates. Masonry synagogues in the territories of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.' and Heaven’s Gates. Wooden synagogues in the territories of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.' by Maria and Kazimierz Piechotka. (There are 2 new books from Sergey Kravtsov about synagogues in Wolhynia that I consider to obtain too). So if I cite these well researched books and no other source (especially online sources, which might not be available at all) will more sources be required?--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wanfried-Dublin, I think it depends on how much is actually in Heaven's Gates. The two sources thing is primarily a rule of thumb. A synagogue, and especially an old synagogue, is unlikely to be terribly controversial, so I as a new page patroller would not be overly concerned that relying on only one source would cause neutrality issues. The issue then is whether enough had actually been written in the book to establish notability. I would suggest including actual quotes from the book to demonstrate the quality and depth of coverage. I can't guarantee that such an article would make it past AfD (especially without even seeing the source or the hypothetical article), but I think it's worth a shot. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, thanks. As these books are definitely the best source available (and in English too), I will use them for further articles (and try to include other sources from the internet where they are available in English or German).--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion sorting

WP:AFD/USA reads 'This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area.' If a AFD is already in some state deletion sorting, it does not go here too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: yeah sorry about that, I was using the delsort tool so I didn't see the warning on the page. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Episode Summary is mine

Hello. Thank you for you effort in copyright materials on Wikipedia. I saw that on 26th April 2019, you removed all the episode summaries from List of Mo Dao Zu Shi episodes. However, those summaries are all written by me. I have proof of the drafts in my own sandbox, and I also sent screenshots to my friend via Whatsapp. If you need proof, I will be happy to provide it to you. I am not aware that Cinemur have copied my summaries. So this is actually the other way around. I will be undoing the removal of the summaries. Please contact me if you need any more information. Thank you. --ZoeZoeZoey (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)-[reply]

"proto-Protestantism" or "pre-Reformation movements"

Hi, I am interested in your input on Talk:Pre-Reformation movements. If you could leave a brief statement as to which page name you prefer, that would be great.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect patrol

Hello and thanks for reviewing several redirects I created recently. I wonder if it might help you to request a bot to auto-review certain types of uncontentious new pages, such as those called Foo (disambiguation) which consist only of #REDIRECT [[Foo]] and some templates. Yes, an editor full of beans could sneak in a #REDIRECT [[Foo]] {{text|poop}}, but no reader will see that. Certes (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certes, haha I was actually about to propose that myself. I'm a software engineer so while I haven't built any Wikipedia bots yet, I think I can actually do this myself once I've read through some documentation. Other examples of uncontroversial redirects include redirects to biographies with varying usage of initials and full names, redirects that vary only in their usage of diacritics, etc. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing what bots can do. Today, one even managed to appeal its block. Certes (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing the redirects I created! Breawycker (talk to me!) 06:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Romania

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Romania. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for providing R tags on some of the countless artist-to-record label redirects I've created. They've been serving as a reminder for me to actually use those tags more often. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher special

I'm very confused. Did you delete the article I wrote fir Bill Maher's special?? Halfire101 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halfire101, not exactly. The article's subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus, I redirected it to the article for Bill Maher, as I explained in the edit summary. You can revert this edit by clicking undo in the history, but I would caution you against doing this unless you can actually demonstrate the article's notability. Prior to my converting it to a redirect, the article had six citations. Citation #1 is HBO's hosting of the special (not independent or significant coverage), #3 is a press release published on Broadway World (not a reliable source, not independent), and #2, #4, #5, and #6 are database entries (not reliable or significant). Rotten Tomatoes often has links to significant coverage (in the critics reviews section), but in this case the only article isn't actually even a review of the piece, it's a Haaretz piece on comedy specials more broadly and doesn't have enough coverage to establish notability on its own. Examples of significant coverage would be full length reviews, or academic papers that discuss the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Halfire101 please add comments here, not on my user page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Three Worlds Theory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Three Worlds Theory. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Eleni Malandrinou

Hello Rosguill. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eleni Malandrinou, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: can easily be redirected to her daughter's article per WP:ATD-R. Thank you. SoWhy 08:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I guess

In comparison the the other similar entries, I just dont understand why you chose to do that. I modeled what I wrote after the other entries for his other specials. I even purchased the special so I could watch it and document things about it.

Maybe it's my fault, but I still feel like my time as an editor for Wikipedia has been stifled and ruined by editors like you who make choices on a whim without comparisons to similar topics. Maybe instead of reverting all the work I did, you could have sent me a message or commented on it first and given me the chance to rectify whatever situation you claim is an issue. Halfire101 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halfire101, the reason why was that it didn't meet notability guidelines, largely because it wasn't supported by reliable sources. I'm an editor on the new page patrol, so my main task on Wikipedia is reviewing new articles and determining whether they comply with notability guidelines (among other issues). As far as sending a message first, editing etiquette is governed by the process of Bold, Revert, Discuss (i.e. WP:BRD), which is to say that bold edits (including converting articles to redirects) are encouraged and don't require prior notice, so long as everyone is civil in discussing changes if a bold edit turns out to be controversial. Your contributions have not been deleted: if you think you can demonstrate the subject's notability, you can absolutely revert my edit and add more sources. If you'd like some time to work on the article without other editors interfering, we can also move it to Draft-space where you can work on it unmolested. That having been said, I'd suggest making sure that you're familiar with WP:GNG before spending much more time on it.
I'm also happy to answer any other questions you may have. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for putting the category template here... Given that I had the presence of mind to mention the category in the edit summary when creating it, I probably should have made it around to the conclusion that it should go in the page too... oh well, I'll try to remember next time :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 06:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pacific War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pacific War. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Jolanta Omilian

I did not agree for deletion of page of Jolanta Omilian, of course I can correct it and use her www as source of information. There is no the button button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". Can you please help me? Atomksk (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill&oldid=896485705"