User talk:Rosguill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Togliattiazot affair[edit]

Hi Rosguill, I just noticed that the page I created, "Togliattiazot affair", seems to have disappeared. Instead, I'm directed onto a redirection site leading to the Togliattiazot page, though I do not see any of the affair's page content on the company's page.

Could you let me know what happened, and why the Affair page was removed? Many thanks! Dustpirate (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dustpirate, from looking at the redirect's edit history, it looks like Lovelylinda1980 converted the article you wrote to a redirect with the justification this is a POV fork based on sources that are questionable at best and absolutely not reliable with respect to anything regarding Russia's government. I would suggest raising the issue on Talk:Togliattiazot affair. If you can't come to an agreement there, let me know and we can figure out next steps based on the state of the disagreement. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, many thanks! Dustpirate (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again :Rosguill, I left a message on the talk page of LovelyLinda1980 as well as on the article's [page] a few days ago, but have received no response in either case. Could you advise on how to move forward from here please? Is it possible to reinstate the page? Many thanks for your help! Best, Dustpirate (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Dustpirate, I would wait a full week, at which point you can reinstate the article. If LovelyLinda wants to continue to engage with the content dispute, the next step is them nominating it for AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Hi again, and apologies for knocking on your door so often here... Could you assist me with reinstating the page that was deleted by redirection please? I tried to move it using the redirect page's history, and it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect of retrieving the article. Any advice? Many thanks in advance! Best, Dustpirate (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Dustpirate I went ahead and did it for you, it wasn't the move that you needed to reverse but rather the edit that removed the text. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Thank you so much for your help and patience! Best Dustpirate (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for an adoptee[edit]

Hi. I am interested in learning about creating new pages, and more about the standards and policies. Areas of expertise and interest include Tibet, India and Buddhism, US domestic national security politics, and have a deep knowledge of architecture, history and fine arts. Are you interested? A few more details are on the profile. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pasdecomplot, normally I would be happy to help you but right now I'm in the middle of a very busy time and can't commit to taking on any new adoptees for a few weeks. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding. If I locate an adoptee before you're available, I'll let you know. Just in case, would you be willing to check in when available? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I'll try, but depending on circumstances I can't guarantee that I'll remember to. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Away team (Star Trek term)[edit]

This was recently deleted at RFD, but no one in that discussion mentioned that the link was already in use in dozens of articles. It would be better for readers if the page at least redirected to Away team, where the concept is briefly defined. Zagalejo^^^ 22:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Zagalejo, I think that's reasonable, although Star Trek: Away Team may be a more appropriate target. I can't guarantee that other editors will agree so it may be renominated for RfD, but I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and will not take action to nominate it for deletion myself. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, Star Trek: Away Team is a specific video game, rather than a page about the Star Trek concept in general. Speaking as someone who has recently gotten into Star Trek during the COVID lockdown, I think the single line in Away team is sufficient. Zagalejo^^^ 22:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Block of 38.39.17.89[edit]

Was that a mistake? They're not "edit warring"; they're the LTA who has been targeting MP-linked pages for the past few months. With a partial block, they'll just move on to another page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, GalaxyDog, thanks for filling me in. I have the Hong Kong protests page on my watchlist and saw the most recent war, but don't keep a super close eye on it and wasn't aware of this LTA and just blocked based on the obvious 3RR violation. I have no objection to further action taken against them but I'm afraid that I'm short on time right now and can't commit to doing more myself. signed, Rosguill talk 01:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: No problem; it's still on AIV so another admin will see it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware of this[edit]

Hi, I see you blocked 38.39.17.89 from editing a specific page for edit warring, but I think you should be aware of these other blocked IPs and their edits: 50.65.169.227 and 72.136.99.53 I wasn't sure if you were, so that's why I'm leaving this message here. Thanks! —GalaxyDogtalkcontribs 01:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see Suffusion of Yellow's post above this about the same topic. Sorry! —GalaxyDogtalkcontribs 01:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and redirect![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

Thank you!

RkOLOGUY (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

Hello, I'm Vikarna and I have to acess to Wikipedia via proxys for I live in mainland China. Unfortunately, my IPBE perssion has expired and most IP addresses I used was blocked, I always translate articles to Chinese Wikipedia and I couldnt do any edits when I find and try to correct some mistakes in an article most of the time, what's more, I often couldnt edit my own talk page. So I sent emails to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org according to Wikipedia:IPECPROXY to request for the IPBE permission but there was no any response for ten days. I’m not sure if the message was not delivered, or there was any other problem, so I go to here to request for help. Best wishes and thanks a lot. --ROYAL PATROL ☎ 911 10:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Vikarna, I do not have CheckUser permissions, so unfortunately I can't help you with this. I would suggest reaching out to one of the editors listed here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It's all right, thanks a lot. --ROYAL PATROL ☎ 911 16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You have a response on NPR[edit]

Hello Rosguill, I have responded to your questions about two draft articles on the new pages reviewer request page. Kindly visit the page. Thanks for your work. Ugbedeg (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

About CSD and PROD Tagging[edit]

Hello Rosguill, I can say that I have a good knowledge of WP:GNG and I can help as a new pages reviewer. I understand that CSD and PROD tagging are not part of the requirements for new pages reviewer right though, I went to the tea house and asked to be instructed on where I can participate in CSD and PROD tagging and AFD discussions but was told that AFD discussion make no impact on articles tagged CSD and PROD. Except the two draft articles which I have explained the rational they are still in the draft space, none of my articles and edits have been deleted. I kindly request that you grant me at least a few weeks new pages reviewer trial period to prove myself. I hope that this request will be granted as I have seen your kind response to issues. Thank you for the good work you are doing. Ugbedeg (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ugbedeg, I already explained at the permissions request board why I am not conferring this permission right now. Your repeated insistence, despite the fact that you clearly still don't understand how these various deletion protocols work is not going to win you any favors. signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this. I'm an active editor and I will let you know my participation in CSD and PROD in the coming days so that you can review my edits. Once again apologies and I hope that you will always respond to me when I need a clarification on certain things. Ugbedeg (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ugbedeg, if I can make a suggestion, please approach this with a bit of patience. While CSDs are by definition quick, PROD tags and AfD discussions take a week (minimum) to run their course. If you rush into this and start tagging pages left and right, you're liable to make quite a few mistakes before anyone catches them. I would suggest that you start tagging one or two articles or participating in one or two AfD discussions per day, with the goal of reapplying for NPP in a month or two. I also can't promise that I'll be able to coach you personally on this much; off-Wikipedia life has been rather demanding lately.
If you want coaching, you may want to ask one of the other editors listed at WP:NPPSCHOOL for help. signed, Rosguill talk 05:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user program[edit]

Hi there! I am looking for you! to be my mentor, I have been in Wikipedia for a few months and already gained some experience from an adoptee but I want to gain more experience on other departments and project, is it possible for you to be my mentor? — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 08:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

TheChunky, unfortunately I'm rather busy off-Wikipedia these days and can't commit to taking on any new students now. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Sorry. I thought maybe you can because you have added Adopting tag on your Userpage. Anyway, If you get time I need to learn few things, because one editor teaches me many things. But some things need to be learn from users like you. Btw Thank You.❤️ — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 23:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks Rosguill for protecting my Userpage from vandalism. — Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Fictitious references - Can you help?[edit]

Hello, I saw a statement in an article which did not exist in the claimed source. I think it's a Type 3. The article is here. In the last paragraph, the last sentence 253th citation[1], I checked the source myself and I couldn't see any information that is strictly related to the last sentence of the last paragraph. Please, check it yourself if you can. I didn't know what to do about this, plus you seem to have access to JSTOR that's why I contacted you. Thank you.

Sources

  1. ^ Freeman, Michael (1995). "Genocide, Civilisation and Modernity". The British Journal of Sociology. 46 (2): 207–23. doi:10.2307/591786. JSTOR 591786.

--TrueNeutrality (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

TrueNeutrality, you're right, the source doesn't mention the Armenian genocide at all, and in fact specifically mentions Lemkin's motives were to document German war crimes. I'm going to remove only the second half of the paragraph, because the bit about the Turkish government's stance is widely attested if not currently sourced and less neutral than it could be. Incidentally, the article was an interesting read and I appreciate having had a chance to go through it. signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Assessment Rating[edit]

Hi Rosguill, can you please help me in getting assessment or re-assessment ratings to these articles, Madhvacharya, Narayanacharya, Krishnacharya Tamanacharya Pandurangi, Satyadhyana Tirtha, Vidyadhisha Tirtha, Raghuttama Tirtha, Satyatma Tirtha, Sripadaraja, Raghavendra Tirtha, Vadiraja Tirtha and Uttaradi Math, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

MRRaja001, do you mean the quality/importance ratings on the talk page banners? I would suggest installing this script which lets you easily edit ratings. signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
For reviewing most of the redirects I have created recently. Ta! 220 of Borg 08:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Rosguill,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please help if you can[edit]

Hello R. You just tagged eleven articles with "{{linkrot}}" templates. That is okay the problem is you put them inside of "multiple issue" templates. If you look at the linkrot template you will see the message "(One such tool to fix up some types of bare URLs is reFill, see also its documentation)" and, for those of us who work on fixing bare urls, all we have to do to get the program running is click on the blue linked word "refill." That sentence/option goes away when a MI template is used so we have to make an extra edit before we can format the bare url. It isn't the worst thing in the world but it does add to the work load and that increases when you are tagging multiple articles. I also know it can be a bit of a hassle at your end of the editing but if you can help us out it would be appreciated. Thanks for your time and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 00:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I'll keep that in mind going forward, thanks for the heads up. signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. There is so much to learn around here R. I've been here over 15 years and between what I'm not aware of and new things being added Sisyphus has got nothing on me :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"New Church Day" redirect[edit]

I am somewhat puzzled by the reversion of the redirect of “New Church Day.”

First, the article to which it redirects presently seems to say nothing about the holiday. Are you thinking that it should be edited to do so?

Second, here are two examples of coverage in independent sources:

1) Mary Ann Meyers, not an adherent of the New Church, writes of this holiday in her book (based on her Phd dissertation) A New World Jerusalem: The Swedenborgian Experience in Community Construction (Greenwood Press, 1983)

“By the late 1870s, the nineteenth of June had been established as a day of special observance…” (p. 60)

Her credentials: https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/people/mary-ann-meyers Mary Ann Meyers is a writer and Senior Fellow at the John Templeton Foundation, where she heads the Humble Approach Initiative, a program that brings together scientists, philosophers, and theologians in international symposia. She is also a secretary and a director of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Before coming to Templeton, she served as a Secretary of the University of Pennsylvania for more than a decade and taught American religious history. She subsequently served as the President of the Annenberg Foundation, and earlier in her career, she taught at Haverford College. Her books include Art, Education and African-American Culture: Albert Barnes and the Science of Philanthropy (2004) and A New World Jerusalem: The Swedenborgian Experience in Community Construction (1983). Meyers graduated magna cum laude from Syracuse University and holds a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania.

2) Another book, originally published in 1932, and also based on a PhD dissertation, The New Church in the New World (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1932), by Marguerite Beck Block (again, not an adherent of the New Church), likewise discusses the church holiday: “The celebration of this date has always been a distinctive feature of the Academy. It is to commemorate the nineteenth of June 1770 ….” (p. 263 in the 1984 edition)

- Stephen D. Cole Stephendcole (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Stephendcole

Stephendcole, those sources weren't in the article, and didn't come up when I searched online. I don't have time right now to do a thorough evaluation, but if you think they're enough to establish that the subject meets WP:GNG, feel free to reinstate the article. signed, Rosguill talk 05:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf 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/Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

New Pages[edit]

Hello Rosguill, I am Megan, I noticed that you had a lot of experience in reviewing new pages. I was requesting if you could grant me the flag. I have helped to clear the backlog in pending changes and would like to help clear the backlog in new pages review. Before requesting I have made sure to familiarize myself with policies and have gained knowledge in CSD,AfD,PROD,Stub Sorting,WP:NOTE,WP:NPOV,WP:COI,and mostly WP:COV. Please review my My contributions and tell me what you think. Thank you for your time. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, hey, you seem to have done quite good work so far. However, while you meet the minimum edit count requirement, your account is still rather new, and is short of the minimum account age requirement of 90 days. Your track record in article creation and AfDs is good, but also a bit narrow: virtually all of your creations fall under easy-to-judge SNGs and the AfDs you've participated in so far are all for articles that are egregiously short on references. Thus, I'm going to decline to confer permissions now, but if you keep up the good work and apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer in two months or so I would be happy to confer the permissions then. I would also suggest enabling PROD and CSD logging through Twinkle so that your track record with those procedures is easier to evaluate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Okay, Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "redirect deletion"[edit]

Hi, hope you're doing well. I have recently create two drafts such as Draft:Freedom of the press in India and Draft:Freedom of the press in Pakistan, however, i am not able to move any of the following into mainspace. It says "the name already exist". Please help deleting redirects. Thank you. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears,  Done, for future reference you can tag redirects like this with WP:G6 speedy deletion tags to add them to a backlog that usually gets cleared within a day or two. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
TheBirdsShedTears, also, note that Freedom of expression in India exists as well. It seems to have a slightly different scope than the article you wrote, but you may want to reshuffle some content between the two (or merge them), as their scopes do overlap somewhat. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Himalayan Continent - G5[edit]

The earliest block in the Admirenepal SPI was in July 2013 on Liznamraduop (talk · contribs), [1]. Himalayan Continent was created in December 2013. It's G5 eligible. Cabayi (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, my bad, I was looking at Admirenepal's block log directly. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate page issue[edit]

Hi, i have recently created a new page titled Atta Mohammad Bhambhro. I was searching for an image on Wikimedia Commons and suddenly came to know that the page i created already exists at Atta Muhammad Bhanbhro. Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Aya and the Witch[edit]

Hi hope you’re doing well. I just wanted to ask, since you have experience regarding new pages, if the article Aya and the Witch should be moved to draftspace or deleted. I believe that there isn’t enough coverage for it to qualify for a full article just yet. Thanks. KaitoNkmra23 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

KaitoNkmra23, I think that moving to draftspace is probably the way to go, as the coverage is still largely speculative and there's no firm release date yet. Still, given Studio Ghibli's enormous international prestige, it's pretty much inevitable that the film will be notable; even if it was cancelled tomorrow, there's a decent chance that the cancellation would generate enough coverage (plus retrospectives a few years out about artwork for the lost film) to meet notability guidelines anyway. So, the by-the-book course of action is to keep it in draftspace, but I think turning a blind eye here is also acceptable. My usual course of action for cases like this is to drop by on the talk page and explain the situation to editors involved with the article––that way the editors writing it don't get the false impression that this level of coverage is generally acceptable, but we also avoid a likely-pointless AfD argument. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Question re: New Page Reviewer Rights[edit]

Hi, I had requested New Page Reviewer rights, and was awarded them for 1 month on a trial basis on May 22nd. The instructions were to perform at least 20 page reviews over the following month. I have reviewed and/or added appropriate tags/categories/etc. for more than 20 pages in that time. What did I do wrong to have those rights not become permanent? I know I wasn't perfect- I had made some mistakes, but I took those as learning experiences and tried to do better the next time I encountered a similar situation. Was it that I had to mark 20 as reviewed? I'm not sure if I hit 20 marked as reviewed, I reviewed more than 20, but many of them I marked with tags for improvement but waited to see if those changes were made before marking them reviewed. Should I not have done that? Should I have marked them reviewed after adding tags? Thank you for your feedback Nightenbelle (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Nightenbelle, the rights expire automatically. If you want them to become indefinite, just re-request at WP:PERM and someone will review your record. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha Thank you! Nightenbelle (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Huang Wei Zhong[edit]

There are two other articles which are created leading up to 2020 Singaporean general election, Gan Siow Huang and Poh Li San. Should these articles be AfD or redirected as well? – robertsky (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Robertsky, generals are usually notable, so Gan Siow Huang is in the clear. Poh Li San is a more borderline case, but I see one decent source in the article already (and there's a good chance that there's going to be Chinese-language coverage as well). A new page reviewer has already signed off on it, so I'm inclined to leave them be. signed, Rosguill talk 06:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Noted! Thanks for the clarification. :) – robertsky (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

Hello. Please look at the article. The volume is small, but in the future I will edit. Could help transfer to the main space? 93.77.185.154 (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me that it’s too early to transfer to the main space and will require more information and coverage in order to do so. Until then, it’s recommended that it stays in draftspace. KaitoNkmra23 (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Kaito, the currently cited sources are largely not independent, and fall short of the WP:ORGCRITE notability standard that we expect for companies. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Advice?[edit]

Presad@ Rosguill, I think there are some potential issues (CAN, COI, hounding) involved in this AfD discussion. Would it be possible for you to please take a look and share your opinion with me? Thanks for your consideration. إيان (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

إيان, I think that you were too quick to accuse people of canvassing here; it's perfectly reasonable for a higher proportion of Arabic-speaking editors to an AfD about an Arabic-language topic (especially once it's been transcluded to a list of deletion discussions about Lebanon). I'm not seeing anything I would call hounding or clear signs of COI either. If I were you, I would write a quick apology and let the discussion run its course, and consider sending personal apologies to the editors you accused of bad faith actions more directly. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Narasimharaja (Vidhan sabha constituency) " listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Narasimharaja (Vidhan sabha constituency). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 29#Narasimharaja (Vidhan sabha constituency) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Italawar (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

Hallo Rosguill, während Sie das Earwig-Tool zum Überprüfen verwenden, in wie viel Prozent von Copivio sollte eine Seite mit G12 gekennzeichnet sein? Ich benutze G12 im Allgemeinen, wenn es mehr als 70 Prozent beträgt, und in anderen Fällen frage ich nach Revdel. Ich wollte nur fragen, ob es richtig ist. Ich hoffe, es macht Ihnen nichts aus, wenn ich auf Deutsch spreche. Es ist ein schönes Gefühl, wenn Sie in einer anderen Sprache sprechen als in der, die wir gewohnt sind. Trotzdem danke und zögern Sie nicht, in beiden Sprachen zu antworten. Antila 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Antila, moin moin, es hängt nicht nur vom Prozent. Man muss sich fragen, ob der Artikel ohne den Copyviosverstoß verständlich wäre. Wenn ja, denn soll man bloß die verstoßende Texte entfernen. Wenn nein das G12 gilt solange es keine frühere copyviofreie Revision gibt. Und natürlich ist es auch wichtig die Quelle zu bedecken, um zu bestätigen, dass die Ähnlichkeit ein echtes Copyvio ist, und nicht nur ein Wikipediaspiegel, eine Bibliographie, eine gemeinfreie Webseite oder sowas ist (Earwigs-Tool kann dass selbst nicht machen). signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding review of the article[edit]

Hi, Rosguill Can you please review/patrol the Bharat Biotech. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, sorry I generally don't review articles on request. It's in the queue, so a reviewer will get to it eventually. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, OK. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 18:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nawab of Bengal[edit]

Hi. That page was arbitrarily moved without consensus in 2016 from Nawab of Bengal to Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad. There was no RM at the time. I suggest moving back to the original title and then have a RM.--LancelotLake (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

LancelotLake, the issue isn't so much the suitability of the name as the method you used to rename the article. We can't do copy/paste moves because that breaks the attribution history, which can cause legal problems in addition to being a pain for editors trying to look through an article's history. At this point, 4 years and hundreds of edits have passed without complaint so the current revision should be considered the status quo. If you're right about the underlying naming issue, then the RM should be resolved within the week. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is the underlying issue. See this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nawab_of_Bengal&oldid=491133348
Unfortunately, some articles do not get adequate attention, and years pass by. I can assure you that the title to which I moved is definitively WP:COMMONNAME.--LancelotLake (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

NPP Essay[edit]

Hi Rosguill. I'm drafting a response to your recent essay on NPP and I wonder where you think the best place would be to post it? I originally thought I would do as you did and post an essay in my own user space and link it to the NPP discussion. Does that seem right or would it be better to try and keep the discussion in one place somehow? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, that's probably appropriate. You should probably also link to it as a See also from the original essay too. I'm honestly a bit worn out from the first round of discussion though. signed, Rosguill talk 06:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I can appreciate your weariness. My contribution isn't so much a reply to you as an attempt to widen the discussion and propose actions for other editors to consider so don't feel you're being put on the spot! Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durbar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on new BLP[edit]

Hello. We've never chatted, but I've seen you're advice on new articles and I thought I would reach out for your guidance. I've created a new article that is a biography of a living person (my first one). The article is Monica Muñoz Martinez. I know there are special requirements for BLP articles and wanted to make sure I haven't inadvertently broken any rules. If you have time (and I know you receive a lot of requests) any feedback would be appreciated. Hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  22:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, at a glance it looks good. There's a few sources that are a bit more affiliated with the subject than we'd generally prefer but that's pretty standard for academics. BLP concerns are mostly just about being stricter about sourcing for controversial statements, which don't seem to be a concern in this article. You've used a few external links in places you shouldn't but that's a minor concern that can be cleaned up (I would also consider combining some of the bibliography and rewards sections into subsections of the same heading). Finally, I haven't assessed the subject's notability, but at a glance it looks like Martinez has drawn enough attention that that is unlikely to be much of a concern. signed, Rosguill talk 23:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and advice. I think your suggestions definitely improved the article and I read WP:EL and learned a bit.   // Timothy :: talk  01:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Latinx[edit]

Spain endured an Inquisition and decades of fascist rule, but may now be facing the gravest threat to its way of life from little ol' Wikipedia. Who knew? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, claiming the Royal Academy to be a bastion of antiracist thought is a new level of mental gymnastics. The urge to condescend to this guy en nuestra lengua materna is extremely strong, but probably inappropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
😁 —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, linguistic imperialism aside, giving a small group of bureaucrats authority to dictate what is and isn't culturally/linguistically "pure" seems a bit, well, fascist, no? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf, it was founded in 1713 and its proclamations are reliably ignored by linguists, so I think referring to it as a feudal fiefdom (alongside the French academy) is more accurate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

AIAI wording tweak[edit]

Thanks for the simpler working. I think though that the word “promote“ should be “promoted” to be the correct tense. I am too close to the article to amend it myself. If you have time, can you make this small change? Best wishes. Austin Tate (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Austintate, I went ahead and took care of it, although those kinds of minor grammatical tweaks are often considered ok even if made by editors with a conflict of interest. Alternatively, you can also make a formal WP:Edit request, which will add your request to a backlog so you're not waiting around until the specific editor you messaged gets to it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of copyrighted page Josias Welsh[edit]

Hi Rosguill I know it's not your job to educate me but I had a page deleted for copyright and have no idea why. The book was published in 1879 so I believe it is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain. I had added a This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. after the reference which was given. There are scans on internet archive here: https://archive.org/details/genealogicalmemo00byuroge and https://archive.org/details/genealogicalmem02rogegoog and https://archive.org/details/genealogicalknox00rogeuoft. Would you be able to advise me on what text I am allowed to use or point me in the direction of the answer? Thanks Ehdeejay (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ehdeejay, this was a mistake, and thank you for calling me on it. The reason that the article ended up deleted was because it was a match of the text in this archive, which did not clarify the content's public domain status. The citations you provided, however, do establish that the text is in the public domain and thus ok for us to use. signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyright law is tricky but I thought I was getting the hang of the basics. Thanks for restoring the page. I woke up to find it flagged and deleted. At least nobody died. (If I was as pessimistic as a marshwiggle I'd say Charles Rogers died but since that was in the nineteenth century at least wikipedia isn't stealing his intellectual property).Ehdeejay (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing every page that I have created. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020[edit]

@Rosguill Hello Rosguill, there's this user called Timwikisidemen, who you told just 2 months to stop edit warring. However, that use has continued disruptive editing, edit warring, adding fancruft and original research. If you look at his talk page, he has been told to stop doing this many times. Just this day alone, he has reverted 17 edits on KSI discography. He keeps adding songs in the singles table on KSI discography that were never released as singles, neither for streaming nor digital download. It also comes under poorly sourced information since the sources he added to those songs doesn't classify them as singles either. Moreover, he's clearly a fan since he keeps adding fancruft to the article like adding "Bronze certification", a thing that doesn't even exist. Even the source he added to 'bronze certification' doesn't even contain the word 'bronze' in it, its straight up original research, he just wants the album to show a certification even though it doesn't have any yet. When I tried removing original research from that article, he accused me of having multiple accounts, even though I don't even have an account yet. I edit only occasionally & edit pages that are not that popular, hence I didn't felt the need to have an account, I just edit through IPs that change periodically

In short, I tried to explain him to stop edit warring and stop adding fancruft and original research, however he keeps reverting my edits. So, can you explain it to him ? 2405:205:1581:2029:8020:291E:E0E9:1CE1 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't have time to look into a dispute at this moment. I would suggest that you file a case at WP:ANEW so that another admin can take a look at it. Otherwise I can't guarantee when I'll be able to review this. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#someone named Rosguill keeps deleting my wikipedia page[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#someone named Rosguill keeps deleting my wikipedia page. An editor has raised concern over a deletion that you were involved with. Just letting you know because you have a right to know! :-) Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Field Marshal Aryan, noted. I don't think that my participation is needed at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, understood. It was just a reminder anyways and not a formal invite (the talkback template makes it look that though). Cheers, Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

NPP school admission request[edit]

Hi, Rosguill, I'm here to request you to accept me as your pupil in NPPS training. As you know that I'm 3 months old user and have made 3000+ edits. Ping me if you agree. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 06:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS I know perfectly well who you are at this point. I am not going to mentor you. signed, Rosguill talk 06:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
And what's the reason behind it. Perhaps not trustworthy? Empire AS Talk! 06:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Empire AS, it's not that hard to not add copyvio. You did so four days ago, despite having been warned back in April. Which means that either you added copyvio despite knowing that you're not supposed to and then lied about it, or you don't understand copyright rules on such a fundamental level that I honestly wouldn't know how to teach you not to break them. signed, Rosguill talk 07:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not my mistake. I learnt this from existing content. For example, In here the content is copied from this source. Some content is copied from here. Also from here. Seeing these all, I also found a source and added informations from it to the article. Also copied some text too. I think that if other content is true although copied then my content would also be. That's the story. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Empire AS - Unfortunately, I and some other experienced editors are concerned when a new editor seems too eager to get multiple permissions. There should be no urgency to get New Page Patrol permission, but there is urgency to learn to avoid copyvio before learning to do New Page Patrol. That is just the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:, yes very little I understand the importance of avoiding copyvio. I haven't read any policies or guidelines. These are time consuming. I learnt this all from existing contents as described above. But where can I find help about copyvio. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 03:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Empire AS - Why are you in such a hurry to get advanced permissions? The most favorable answer is simply that you want to help improve Wikipedia. However, there are signs that you do not understand Wikipedia well enough to help it. We don't need to grant advanced permissions to editors who are trying to help improve the encyclopedia, but are creating more work for other volunteers to clean up behind them. There are other less favorable reasons, such as that you are trying to sneak in for advertising for a hidden employer, that are unlikely but are not impossible. You have shown that you mean well but have questionable judgment, and that your questionable judgment makes work for other volunteers. I see a distressing number of notices of Categories for Deletion that are red-linked, meaning that the categories were deleted. You don't need to create categories that the community deletes. Slow down! You don't need to be so eager to use advanced permissions to help us that you make work cleaning up behind you. You can learn about policies and guidelines through ordinary editing. You don't need mentoring or training; you need self-mentoring, slowly. We can see that you make too many mistakes, which probably just means that you are in a big hurry to help us, but we don't need help by being in a big hurry. Slow down and learn by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

You're right, I hadn't seen that Khirurg had already initiated an RfC on the same topic. [2] Feel free to blank my RfC. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for review[edit]

I appreciate your review of the REDIRECT page I created at Bob Israel. I am curious if you are using an "app" to help you with reviews? I just recently tried out the web-based service at WikiLoop Battlefield. It's a little clunky, but still somewhat addictive. I could see myself spending more and more time reviewing other people's edits, rather than working on my own stuff that interests me, which could be a drawback. Anyway, thanks again. There are so many different people who keep Wikipedia running smoothly! - AppleBsTime (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

AppleBsTime, I'm using WP:TWINKLE and the Page curation tool signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't even know about Gadgets yet. Thank you for the explanation! - AppleBsTime (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

SkyWay[edit]

Hi. Earlier, I asked you for help in evaluating my edits in the article SkyWay Group. One participant again added to the article's preamble information that the public was allegedly warned about risky investments. As I said earlier, the source does not speak for all countries, but only for some of them. This information about the ban by financial regulators in some countries is already available in the article. Why should it be included in the preamble of the article? Can you help me delete this sentence? Thanks. 95.153.134.208 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If by preamble you mean lead, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the contents of the article. Glancing at the page again, there probably should be some mention of the regulators' warning in the lead, but the rest of the content should be better summarized as well. I'm guessing that a more due presentation would be two or three paragraphs of summary, of which the financial regulators' warning and its context take up a sentence or two. signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the answer. Yes, I was referring to the introduction of the article about the public being warned about risky investments. However, it cannot be said that the entire public was warned. The company cooperates with many countries and in some cases has a positive cooperation, in some cases the activity is prohibited. I think it is correct to leave the preamble without this information. If the activity of this company is prohibited somewhere, it is indicated in the sections of each country. But we can't generalize this in the introduction. The source quoted there speaks of financial regulators in some countries, but not all countries have banned activities, with many there is positive cooperation.Porar234 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Porar234, then it sounds like you know what you need to do? The lead should be a succinct and neutral summary of the article's contents. It also looks like another editor has stepped in and reverted some of the edits you mentioned. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I ask you for advice. I think that this information should be in the appropriate sections, given that the company operates in many countries and its activities are prohibited only in some. Thanks again for the dialogue!Porar234 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. The participant re-added information to the introduction of the article. He mentioned the ban of Belgium and Germany, as well as other 15 countries, but the source does not contain so much. Please tell me if this information is included in the introduction. There is a section on Financial regulation in the article where this information is included. Why display this information in the introduction? Also mentioning "potential fraud". This is not considered neutral. I consider it necessary to return the edits, but I'm afraid of war. I ask for help in resolving the conflict. Thank you very much! Porar234 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Porar234, at this point if you have concerns about article content you should raise a discussion on the article's talk page, which is the best way to avoid edit wars. Bear in mind that neutrality is based on reliable sources: if reliable sources accuse SkyWay of "potential fraud", then it is in fact neutral to include it. Additionally, the lead is supposed to summarize and repeat information from the body of the article, so the mere presence of the content in the body does not mean that it shouldn't be in the lead. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark Tuan at RFD[edit]

I am a little confused by your statement in the RFD that perhaps WP:AN would have been a better forum. What is the administrative concern for which AN would have been a better forum? I don't see an administrative concern except a Request for Unprotection, and that has been dealt with. Are you saying that WP:AN is the right forum for unprotection requests, or are you saying that WP:AN is the right forum for draft acceptance requests, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think that the actual concern/request that you raised at RfD falls through the cracks of the scopes of most of our discussion boards, and AN sometimes works as a bit of a catch all for cases like that. Add to that that the concern is related to possible bad faith resubmissions of the article and it seems to me like a better fit than RfD, which isn't typically the place to give an incoming draft the thumbs up or down or catch UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No. My experience is that RFD is by far the weakest of the XFD forums. AFD and MFD have well-informed regulars. I know almost nothing of CFD or TFD. I have seen that RFD has cracks. It also has stupid comments, such as the one about Mark Twain, which implies that the editor didn't know anything. My experiences with RFD have been mixed, not good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, by "fall through the cracks" I just meant that we don't have a board that's specifically meant to address concerns like the one you raised, it wasn't meant as a comment on the general competence of editors at the various XfD boards. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Right. But RFD has its own cracks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, yeah, the low bar for participation (as well as the relatively trivial nature of a lot of the discussions there) means that there it's hard to push back against editors that consistently show bad judgment there without coming off as bitey. signed, Rosguill talk 01:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Low bar indeed. The bar for participation in any XFD process is to know how to use a web browser to edit Wikipedia. That's like a bar of 70 centimeters (the bar being the bar that has to be cleared on a high jump), so that you can step over it. The closer will discount IP !votes and !votes that appear to be from socks, but there is no bar. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

iPhone 9[edit]

Why do you keep deleting the redirect of iPhone 9? I really need the redirect. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh, there was a discussion about whether the redirect should be deleted, which you can read here. A majority of editors in the discussion felt that the redirect was misleading. signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Look at https://www.techjunkie.com/why-is-there-no-iphone-9/. According to this site, "If you really want to get the equivalent to the iPhone 9, the closest you’ll be able to get would be the iPhone XR, released in October 2018. It is, essentially, the middle of the road phone that the iPhone 9 would have been, had it actually existed by that name."Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Neel.arunabh, the time to raise these arguments would have been during that discussion, of which you were notified while it was actually occurring. That having been said, I don't think that an article that offhandedly says that the XR is the closest to an iPhone 9 is a particularly strong argument, especially when said article is in a third-rate tech blog with a fake byline. If you had multiple, reliable tech sources making this argument as a centerpiece of their coverage, then you'd have a strong case for the redirect being created. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Also see https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/27/ifixit-iphone-xr-teardown.Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Neel.arunabh, re-litigating this with me accomplishes nothing. I would suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK. If you really, really, really can't live without this redirect existing, wait a few weeks, collect as many sources as you can that establish that a specific iPhone model is a suitable target, and recreate the redirect with an edit summary that says that you've found sources justifying the creation of the redirect (and provide them on the talk age). Then, when it gets renominated for deletion, actually participate in the discussion and make your case there. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names. Italawar (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a look at the move log of Vijethnbharadwaj and resume discussions on Legislative Assembly constituency names. Italawar (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for joining me into the "New page reviewers" user group. However...[edit]

... I see at WP:PERM that it is "for 1 month as a trial period".

I hope I will have time to do some new page reviewing during this period, but the nature of my professional commitments right now makes it quite possible that I won't have much time to participate during this short timeframe.

Just to let you know. SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬  at 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

SCHolar44, thanks for the heads up. Do what you can, and if it's not enough for an admin to review we can give you an extension. signed, Rosguill talk 05:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

NPP Admission Request[edit]

Hi Rosguill, Hope you are doing well. I am writing here to know if you have time to teach me NPP steps. Though i have already tried for New Page Reviewer request and it was rejected but that is not the concern. I want to learn that what is missing from my end. I would really appreciated for your time. Thank You. DMySon 06:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

DMySon, unfortunately I don't have the capacity to take on an additional student right now. I know you have an open permissions request at WP:PERM right now; I've avoided reviewing it because I generally try not to review requests from editors that I've already declined because I worry that I won't be able to make a fair assessment. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Rosguill Sir, Not a problem. I can understand your responsibility on Wikipedia. In future if you have time for me, I would really want to learn from you. Thank You for your time. DMySon 05:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
DMySon, noted. I have things off-Wikipedia that are eating up my time right now so I'm actively avoiding taking on any new tasks. Things are likely to stay that way for at least a month, so hopefully you either have the permission or else a mentor by the time I'd be ready to help you. signed, Rosguill talk 05:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem Sir, you please focus on your daily life hassles. Hope all is well. I can wait. But i want to learn from you. DMySon 05:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
DMySon, if you're looking for advice in reviewing articles, you can read through WP:QG which was mostly written by me and offers a variety of pointers. Also, please don't call me sir, the formality is unnecessary. signed, Rosguill talk 06:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank You Rosguill. Noted all points. I shall read WP:QG. DMySon 07:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirects review[edit]

Hi there, you've recently reviewed 20-30 redirects I made, for churches and heritage monuments etc, many thanks! As they are all uncontroversial and are mostly about spelling variations or eliminating geographical ambiguities, is there a way that they can be automatically reviewed so you don't have to do each one individually? Okay, if not, just thought I'd check. Thanks anyway! CallMeByYourMane (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

CallMeByYourMane, I've gone ahead and added you to our redirect whitelist; from here on out a bot will take care of your redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks! CallMeByYourMane (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

NPPSCHOOL request[edit]

Hello, I'm asking if you can take me on as an NPPSCHOOL student. I've finished the CVUA, and now want to expand my work to new page patrol. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 13:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanoscar21, sorry, I'm not taking any new students right now as I'm a bit busy with off-Wikipedia stuff. If you still need a mentor in a month or so I may be able to help then. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry — I just noticed the section above. Thanks for your time! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 21:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding redirects and titles with accent marks[edit]

Hello. Recently you provided me some advice on Monica Muñoz Martinez and I was hoping to ask you another question. I was reading about article titles and came across WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. It indicates that a redirect should be created from Monica Munoz Martinez >> Monica Muñoz Martinez. When I type the name into the search box without the accent it does go to the correct article, however typing the URL directly does not. Before I create a redirect I wanted to make sure this was the correct choice or if WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS was outdated. Thank you for your time.   // Timothy :: talk  03:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, TITLESPPECIALCHARACTERS is correct and the behavior you're seeing from the search box vs the url is also "correct"; the search box is smart and automatically matches some characters (in addition to matching accent marks, it also matches upper to lower case and vise versa), but the URL does not have this flexibility. Additionally, if you create a redirect for a matched-pair and point it somewhere ELSE then the actual redirect overrides the matching. signed, Rosguill talk 03:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful close at the Fox News RFC. I know it was not easy. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 from me - a belated thank-you to you, and your colleagues, for closing the discussion—and for correcting misrepresentations of the close. MastCell Talk 02:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Closer's Barnstar[edit]

Closing-door.gif
The Closer's Barnstar
Your thoughtful and concise close at RfC:Fox News did not go unnoticed.

It was not an easy task, and you handled it well.
Please accept this token of appreciation for your excellent work.

Atsme Talk 📧 19:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And here I thought that closers just got coffee. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dachau[edit]

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 13#Dachau: Note that the status quo did not, in fact, have Dachau pointing to the concentration camp. Dachau, Bavaria had been at the bare title for years until it was moved recently in an apparently unilateral action. That is why I think running a WP:DABTEST for a month or more and revisiting the discussion when we have data is the ideal way to go. Because once you declare a primary topic, it is impossible to collect outgoing pageview statistics in an unbiased manner. -- King of ♥ 23:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

King of Hearts, I see, my mistake on the prior consensus. I still think that the discussion's overall consensus was weakly for maintaining a redirect to the concentration camp, however. signed, Rosguill talk 23:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, but would you object to temporarily retargeting Dachau to Dachau (disambiguation) for a month? At the end of that period, if I'm satisfied that Dachau concentration camp is the primary topic, then I'll restore the redirect there; if I still disagree, then I intend to file an RM (Dachau (disambiguation)Dachau) armed with this data, defaulting to restoring the redirect to the concentration camp in case of no consensus. -- King of ♥ 23:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, as much as I don't personally have a problem with that proposal, I feel like that would be supervoting over the opinions of the other editors involved in the discussion. If you can bring them around, I'd have no further objection. signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I will go ahead and be WP:BOLD then. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and if the town was at the base page for over 15 years with no complaints then an extra month isn't going to cause significant inconvenience for readers. In these matters, consensus is a judgment on the desired permanent state of affairs, and I wouldn't classify a temporary test to be against the spirit of it. In fact, the very act of conducting a DABTEST on any disambiguation page is technically a violation of the sitewide consensus at MOS:DABPIPE, but we accept it as a necessary evil for a greater purpose. -- King of ♥ 23:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, fair enough. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, if after a week or so, Dachau concentration camp is very obviously ahead, then the redirect can be restored even earlier. The beauty of this is that we minimize reader inconvenience when it is most severe, but can run the test for the full duration when it is not so clear that readers are being inconvenienced at all. -- King of ♥ 23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, I am sorry but to me this does seem like an attempt to circumvent the consensus, which did not accept your proposal for a dabtest. I am restoring the redirect per Rosguill's closure. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe I made the suggestion at the very end, and it simply wasn't discussed by anyone else, so I wouldn't say there was a consensus against my proposal. If Dachau concentration camp is really the primary topic, what harm does waiting an additional week to a month cause? If the data ultimately shows that readers are actually split 50/50 between the two topics, wouldn't you want to disambiguate as well? -- King of ♥ 00:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, dabtest works quite well if pageviews are relatively constant, or at least at a consistent ratio. Unfortunately, toolforge shows that's not the case with this article. Dachau concentration camp has high spikes in views such that if you did the analysis now, it would significantly underestimate the long-run average pageviews for the concentration camp, versus doing such an analysis in January 2020 would have overestimated it. Therefore, I'm not convinced the test you propose is all that helpful in this case. (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

.[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Atsme Talk 📧 00:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol[edit]

Hi. Since I started patrolling new pages I have been looking at the pages and if there is a major issue, such as no references, I've tagged accordingly but not marked the page as "reviewed". Where the issue is minor I tag and mark as "reviewed". Effectively, I've defined "reviewed" as the article being ok for mainspace. A comment from another editor has made me question this, and that "reviewed" means that a reviewer has looked at the article, and should be marked as "reviewed" no matter what tags are added. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

John B123, your approach is correct. There's often articles that are borderline for notability; it's fair game to tag these and not mark them reviewed, or simply watchlist them and leave them to the next reviewer, especially if the articles are about subjects that you're not familiar with. That having been said, if you've looked for sources online, came up empty handed, and don't have reason to believe that you may have missed something, you should proceed to AfD. An exception would be if the article was recently created (< 24 hours ago), in which case I'll often put a notability tag instead of going straight to deletion processes if notability is the only concern. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and advice. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks, Bhi ... Playlikeastar (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

BFM Lyon Ado[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of Shopping (TV channel); they continue to create 90% infobox articles for French channels which do not justify articles. Nate (chatter) 22:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, sorry, I don't have time to look into this right now. Consider asking a different admin for help or writing a report at ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 03:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem, more just to make you aware than anything. Nate (chatter) 04:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hello, I was wondering how much time does it take a new page to be patrolled? Kabid1026 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Kabid1026 right now the backlog is around 3-4 months for articles, although many reviewers choose to sort the articles by topic and thus may review some newer articles earlier (there's also a fair amount of reviewers who patrol from the front of the queue so that they can catch vandalism). Ensuring that articles you write are well-written and well-sourced will also speed up their review, as articles that don't clearly meet notability guidelines are more difficult to review and thus may be skipped over by editors short on time or who aren't familiar with the subject matter. As an added note, barnstars are supposed to be awarded for outstanding work; awarding one just to ask a question is not particularly appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Default action for WP:T[edit]

In my opinion, a "no consensus" close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 23#Wikipedia:T should result in restoring it to its long-standing target of Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), which was previously at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Note that the current target was only implemented in April 2020 without any consensus supporting the change. (Wikipedia talk:Introduction (historical)#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction had a consensus to retarget WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial which are not the same thing, and WP:T was discussed only minimally with no firm decisions made.) -- King of ♥ 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

King of Hearts, good point, I've gone ahead and made that change. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded EuryalusSQL
removed JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Basim zulfkar[edit]

Hi I’ve run across this page at NPP. It seems to be a user talk page that’s mistakenly been moved into mainspace. I don’t know what to do to move it back. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, taken care of. For future reference, in situations like this, tag whatever's at the user talk page for G6 speedy deletion and make sure the explanation mentions the page in mainspace too so that the admin responding to the issue can fix that too. signed, Rosguill talk 04:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I did that but speedy deletion was declined. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Mccapra, from what I saw in the page history, it looked like you tagged Basim zulfkar, in mainspace, rather than the redirect that was left behind in user space. signed, Rosguill talk 12:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes that’s right I did. I’ll try to remember the right steps if I encounter this again. Thank you. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for IPhone 9[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IPhone 9. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect removal[edit]

Hello! I started reviewing articles in the new pages feed (the oldest) and came across Trey Azagthoth. You have turned it to redirect in January and today your edit was undone by an IP user. After checking the history I have noticed the article was actually a redirect back in 2016 but was recreated this year again. Twice already. I have checked all the sources and even turned some into external links as they are primary - the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. I wanted to ask you as I am a new reviewer - what should I do in such cases - report to ANI or request page protection? Will appreciate you help and advice. Best,Less Unless (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, given the time elapsed between the recreations, and that the IPs are not obviously the same/related (mind you, I'm not a CU so that's just a guess based on looking at the numbers and their editing histories), I don't think there's need for any special actions other than restoring the redirect. If it were a more persistent edit war, either requesting page protection or reporting the editor(s) for edit warring would be appropriate, depending on the specifics of the editors involved and the timing. If it becomes an intractable issue with significant levels of disruption over a long period of time despite having tried other remedies, only then is ANI necessary. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill thank you! So should I restore it or you will? Sorry for being annoying)Less Unless (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Less Unless, I haven't looked at the new draft and was going off of your assertion that it's still not notable. I usually avoid reinstating my own decisions to convert to redirect unless the article has significant problems other than just being non-notable. That way I avoid getting sucked into a potentially exhausting edit war, and the editor reinstating the article also gets to see that multiple editors disagree with them, not just one editor that's decided their word is law. I'm more inclined to step in if warring continues after multiple editors have weighed in. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Sounds very sensible! I will review the article once again and AFD it in case my opinion doesn't change. Thank you for your time. Best,Less Unless (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)