User talk:Rosguill/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Mademoiselle Striptease

What Do you consider a reliable Source? I have a ripped DVD right in front of me. I have sadly no information on the naming of the title of the 1956 movie Mademoiselle Strip-tease (Visa de Controle Cinematographique No 19.004) also known as Mademoiselle Striptease and the naming of the 1956 movie starring Brigitte Bardot with the original title En effeuillant la marguerite which was among other titles also distributed as Mademoiselle Striptease. So we have to movies that are known by the same title produced in the same country in different years. Just claiming one doesn't exist because the IMDB isn't a reliable source is not a valid option. BTW, the trailer for it can be found via google for a english language version titled as the Fast Set here: [1] using the search term Mademoiselle Strip-Tease" 1957 Doll (Title, year and the surename of one of the stars) I'm not active on wikipedia, but on other mediawiki sides, so I don't know the exact proceedings in creating a new artice, which seems to be necessary, but I humbly suggest creating an Article under the Name Mademoiselle Strip-Tease for the 1957 movie which also shows a link on Plucking the Daisy above the TOC. The redirects have to be sorted out, of course. --2001:A61:1012:B201:7D10:B34A:B1D7:5DF (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In order for a Wikipedia article to be created, we need significant coverage in secondary, independent reliable sources. Simply proving its existence does not establish that we should write a Wikipedia article about it. The kind of coverage that would be standard for establishing the notability of the film would be film reviews by professional publications, and/or academic papers analyzing the film or its cultural impact. Trailers or physical copies of the film itself are not usable sources for these purposes, as they are not independent or secondary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK - how about the Entry in a different movie database? [2]. All other sources I know on the top of my head are at librarys that thanks to COVID19 are at the moment not accessible. --2001:A61:104A:CD01:1CEE:4759:111C:BCF8 (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Movie databases may be usable for confirming specific claims, but they don't contribute to meeting notability guidelines because they are tertiary sources, not secondary. I'm afraid that you are going to need to provide secondary sources to make a case for the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not making a case for an article, I'm making a case for a redirect pointing to the wrong target. I am not claiming that the 1957 movie (aviable on amazon [3] is notable like the 1956 one starring Brigitte Bardot, IHMO it's a stinker.

I personaly prefer a stub over a red link over simply wrong information. --2001:A61:105A:1201:1CEE:4759:111C:BCF8 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me: notability on Wikipedia has a specific meaning and is the baseline method for establishing whether a subject gets an article or not. If a subject is not notable, we don't write an article for it, not even a stub. Meanwhile, the sources for Plucking the Daisy establish that "Mademoiselle Strip-tease" was an alternative title used for the film's US release, and therefore is a valid redirect target for as long as we don't have another article by that title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dovid Harris (rabbi)

Hi, I just got the ping that you marked this as reviewed. I was actually going to CSD this, so I went ahead and did. I think I got the right CSD. Can you delete it? I moved the page to the correct name and it didn't need the disambig and it ended having a few moves in the process so you have this page that's not necessary. Also, I'm wondering why my pages aren't auto-reviewed since I am a NPP and a reviewer which doesn't make sense, I can create a page and then mark it myself, which is odd. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, deleted the page, although the correct CSD code would have been G7, not G14 (which is only for redirects that actually include "disambiguation" in the title. NPP does not exclude your contributions from review, and from a technical perspective it shouldn't let you mark your own creations as reviewed (there are some edge cases that I've noticed for articles that are created from redirects, or moved from draftspace after being created by a different editor) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, well I meant I'm a patroller and a reviewer and I've seen the link to mark as reviewed. How do I get the access to be auto-reviewed if it's not automatic? I don't create redirects or articles that often but it'll be nice to have that it doesn't have to wait to be reviewed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph WP:Autopatrol is what you're looking for, although it may be declined on the basis of you having an active TBAN. Regarding you seeing the "mark patrolled" text on articles that you've created, if you come across an example of an article where you see that, I'd appreciate it if you could drop a link in WT:NPR, since it may be a bug. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, if I see it again, I'll post there. I don't think my TBAN should be a problem. it's not a problem now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Pregunta aleatoria

Hola Rosguill (sí, yo habla español y esta pregunta es solo por diversión) Solo quería preguntarte algo en otro idioma. ¿por qué es tan grande la nueva cartera de pedidos de la página? ¿Es porque no hay demasiados rewivers o qué? Gracias, no dudes en responder en español. Firmado,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 00:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, pues es por que hay muchos más artículos nuevos escritos que editores listos para revisarlos. Se ha puesto peor el desequilibrio últimamente porque se retiró uno de los reviewers que trabajaba más duro que todos, y también conozco unos cuantos otros que en los últimos meses han rebajado el tiempo que trabajan en NPP específicamente. También creo que gracias al covid se ha subido más rapido la cantidad de nuevos articulos que la cantidad de nuevos reviewers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, eso tiene sentido, un placer hablar contigo en español. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 00:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, igualmente. Creo que en los últimos dos años que yo he participado en NPP, lo más bajo que he visto la cartera fue con dos o tres mil articulos, y lo más alto aparte del momento actual tuvo como 8-9 mil. Según lo que recuerdo haber oído de otros que han trabajado por aquí por más tiempo, cuando empezó el proyecto de NPP, solo alcanzaban revisar una decima parte de los articulos nuevos. Entonces, si estamos en un momento duro, pero antes ha sido peor, y el tamaño de la cartera cambia bastante. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Te creo mirando las listas. Parece moverse mucho, como a veces es bajo y otros alto. Probaría mi griego contigo, pero parece que no lo hablas. Gracias, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 01:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

jajaja, quizás algún día tratare de aprenderlo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

jaja, un día, un día ..... Recuerdo haber visto a mis padres escribir jajaja y dije: "¿Por qué jajaja por qué no Hahaha?". Me gustan los idiomas, pero nunca tengo tiempo para aprenderlo. ¿Cómo los aprendiste a todos? Escuela, autodidacta? Gracias, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 01:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Una combinación de los dos...mi familia hablaba muchísimos idiomas y entonces aprendí ingles y español como lenguas maternas, pero también oía varios otros por la casa. Hebreo aprendí en la escuela primaria, y estudie alemán y ruso en la universidad. Gracias a mi trabajo me han enseñado japones, y los demás con duolingo. Ahorita voy con el vietnamita...no se que tanto voy a acabar hablando, pero por lo menos puedo entender algo de leída y de la gramática. Próximos me dan ganas árabe y hindú, árabe por razones de familia y hindú para ayudar con NPP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Perdón por la respuesta tardía, interesante, aprendí inglés porque estoy en los Estados Unidos, aprendí español porque mis dos padres son de la ciudad de México y se mudaron a Chicago. Estoy tratando de griego porque parece un buen idioma para aprender. Puedo ver por qué hindú va a ser bueno para NPP. Mejor y gracias Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Llegan bastantes artículos con referencias en hindú, y me gustaría poder leerlos sin Google. No es el único idioma que nos llega, ni el más común, pero de los que aun no conozco yo es uno de los más frecuentes. También e notado que varios websites de periódicos en india no dejan copiar su texto, y por eso tampoco se pueden traducir con google. Además, una cosa que nos hace la vida más difícil es la regla MOS:INDICSCRIPT, que dice que no se debe de incluir nombres en idiomas de India en articulos, y entonces es difícil encontrar más referencias para artículos de temas de india sin poder adivinar como se escriben. Hasta más me encantaría aprender telugu, tamil, odia, o otro idioma de ese país que no se traduce tan bien en Google, pero no se donde podría aprender eso. Por lo menos hindú ya se puede conseguir en Duolingo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Es más fácil sin google. Estoy pensando también en aprender latín porque el español se basa en el latín, por lo que es más fácil que si no supiera español. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 14:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Te gustan los idiomas antiguous en especiál? Es cierto que el castellano puede ser la llave para los idiomas romances, pero en mi opinion es mejor usarlo para aprender frances, italiano o portugues. Entre español y ingles se aprende muy facilmente el frances. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Mi papá aprendió francés en la universidad. Sí, me gustan los idiomas antiguos, como el griego, el latín, el hebreo, el árabe, pero creo que sería más inteligente aprender francés, italiano primero.

Su opinión. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse

Hey Rosguill, hope you are well. You might want to revoke talk page access for UniversePoker777 - VoidSansXD - ICantEdit - 08dravennew Reunion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks like they are a sock of Ferctus. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

LuK3 done, thanks for helping mitigate the damage to my user talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your quick action! -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability - Black Spoke Pro Cycling Academy

Hi. I'm proposing to remove the notability template which you posted at Black Spoke Pro Cycling Academy but thought I should run it past you first. Of the seven teams currently competing in the UCI Oceania Tour, five have articles. None of these five except Black Spoke have a notability template. Admittedly the Oceania tour is relatively small, but I'd argue it fits the criteria of WP:CYCLING/N that "A team is presumed notable if it is: a men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier". Any guidance you could provide on this would be welcomed. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Meticulo, the main reason that I placed the tag was because the sourcing in the article doesn't clearly demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In hindsight, I treated the article more like a conventional company than a sports team, and I'd forgotten that NCYCLING could apply to teams. You can go ahead and remove the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll try to find some more sources for that article, and those of other teams in the tour which are thin on references. Cheers, Meticulo (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about AfD/speedy delete

Hello Rosguill, I was hoping to ask your opinion on an AfD (initiated by justanothersgwikieditor). The page Yap Kwong Weng is creation protected indefinitely, but someone has created a page called Kwong Weng Yap of the same person, just using English rather than Chinese naming conventions. I'm wondering whether this is grounds for a speedy delete. WP:G4 says that the new page needs to be "sufficiently identical" to the deleted version, but I can't see what was on the earlier versions. The page was put up for proposed deletion yesterday and the page's creator took the tag down. Now, it's up for normal AfD. The reason I ask about speedy delete is that the subject of the article is now in the political spotlight for an argument with a prominent academic. It seems wrong that the presence of a Wikipedia page (created in breach of an indefinite protection!) should convey a notability that he does not possess. Would be very grateful to hear what you think, and whether you might be able to help. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, it might be best to approach the admin who protected the page. Sorry for the trouble - thanks anyway! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

@Rosguill: You have reverted my contribution on CCP virus, where I retargeted the redirect to the SARS-CoV-2 article, because there is no consensus. Before reverting any contributions due to no consensus, please ask yourself: will preserving "consensus" be best for the editors and the readers? If you believe so, please slow down and discuss the matter here, as the WP:BRD is invoked. Thank you. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Soumya-8974, there was an extended discussion in which a non-trivial amount of editors made valid arguments for the status quo. Given how recent the discussion was, you absolutely need to go through a consensus building process instead of just making a new bold edit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Oh, DrPizza!

I noticed that you reverted and then reverted back [4] No problem with that as such. But I have since noticed that the user concerned has made this change to his own user page with unacceptable comments [5] Fleet Lists (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Epic Rap Battles of History redirects

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

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

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

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

redirect

"10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This is exact reason for removing redir from this page Matrek (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Matrek, yes, but you don't use speedy deletion tags for that, you take it to WP:RfD and have a discussion. Speedy deletion is only used for extreme cases, like copyright violations and obvious spam. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If not for this, so for what kind of case? This person is a pretty famous, highly decorated German officer, with his own articles in several Wikipedia languages. Only not in en:wiki. And inter-wikis from those pages connect to some list here, because there is no article about him in en:Wiki Matrek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Matrek, Like I said, the list of criteria for speedy deletion are really specific, and can be found at the above link, or you can skip to the specific section. You will still likely be able to get the redirect deleted if you list it at WP:RfD (and you'll have an easier time nominating it for deletion if you use WP:TWINKLE). Also, please sign your messages using ~~~~, otherwise your signature impairs bots' ability to function. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, usually I contribute in another Wikipedia language, so I have little experience over here. But I think you guys have a strange rules on en:wiki. It is highly unlikely, that anybody will create an article, if the subject is already occupied by redirect. On the other wikis, it is generally widely accepted, that with a red color link,there is a much bigger chance that an article will be created, than in the situation, when the subject is occupied by the redir. Matrek (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Matrek, it is a generally accepted cause for deletion here as well, but requires a discussion period at RfD as it is not seen as a totally uncontroversial decision. Putting a speedy deletion tag on a page, as you did, is the equivalent of saying "kill it with fire". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood :) However, if somebody would like to ad hoc create an article, who would waste his time for some discussions that take days or weeks. He/she would just give up, unless this person is really desperate to create this particular article. I think, that's whole idea of speedy deletion, or {{ek}} (fast deletion) how we call it in Polish Wikipedia, to not go though debates, if there is a need to free the page by deleting not an article but just simple redirect. Discussions are rather for deleting of articles, not technical pages. Best. Matrek (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If the editor wants to create the article ad hoc, they can just start editing the redirect's page. The question of deletion is whether it's more useful to have a redirect pointing readers at a page with some minimal information, or to have a redlink to encourage article creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible Adoption

Hey Rosguill. I looking, based on recommendations from my ANI, to obtain a mentor. I noticed you have availability and I think you and I would be able to work together. I’ve made mistakes and I’ve accepted responsibility for them. I need to learn the ropes and you seem to have them down. I have the tag on my user page but I wanted to be proactive and see if I can get someone as high a caliber as yourself. Please let me know. Thanks, Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 06:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia, I'm going to have to decline. I'm quite busy trying to keep backlogs in check these days, and I don't think I can take on an editor that edits at the pace you've been going for the past month. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I have slowed down to only work on two things CVU and Spoken Wikipedia but understood. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 06:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Помощь по статье

Здравствуйте. Обращаюсь к Вам как к опытному участнику Википедии за помощью. Прошу у Вас помощи в приведении статьи SkyWay Group к нейтральному и энциклопедическому стилю. Сам правки вносить не решаюсь, так как боюсь войны правок. Сейчас постараюсь изложить всё более подробно. Если обратить внимание на статью, то её стиль неэнциклопедичен и не нейтральный. Большинство источников не авторитетны, либо же являются журналистским расследованием, по которому не может быть написана статья:

1. В преамбуле статьи сразу видно предложение: The public has been warned by financial regulators about risky investments in SkyWay Group infrastructure projects. Ссылаются на статью из Finance Magnates, где сказано о том, что New Zealand’s FMA Adds Skyway Capital to Warning List. Считаю, что данное предложение необходимо поместить в другой раздел, например о деятельности компании в Новой Зеландии. Но никак не вставлять данное предложение в преамбулу и обобщать своими словами.
2. В разделе "Marketing" предложение: No SkyWay company is currently registered to offer securities in any jurisdiction they operate in.. Источника нет и уже долго время.
3. И также в разделе "Критика". Ссылаются на различные сайты, которые своего рода не являются авторитетными. Также не соблюдается нейтральный стиль. Например Primechaniya.ru - не авторитетен. Onliner.by - журналистское расследование. Volzhskaya Kommuna - не авторитетен.
4. Прошу помощи в удалении сомнительной информации, которая подкреплена ссылками на журналистские расследования и не авторитетные источники. Такие же правки размещены и в других Википедиях, перепечатаны из английской. Спасибо большое! 95.153.131.192 (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

   Я генерално соглашусь с вашим описанием ошибках стати, а не понимаю почему вы боитесь войны правок–никто не сделал никакую правку через месяц, и в пределах последного года в истории стати признак правок против ваших предложенах не вижу. Я советую вносить свои изменении сам, и если кто-нибудь другое бы повернует статью назад, я могу помогать модерировать и избегать войну _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

   Большое спасибо за ответ! Могли бы помочь по тексту ? Что могли бы перефразировал, либо же полностью убрать. Как сделать это более правильнее ? Ещё раз спасибо! 95.153.135.107 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

   правдиво у меня нет времени взять на себя такую заданию сейчас, но если вы начинаете, я могу исправлать грамматику, нейтральность, итд. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

   Здравствуйте. Убрал информацию из статьи, которая подкреплена не авторитетными источниками и журналистским расследованием. Посмотрите пожалуйста. В дальнейшем буду править статью и дальше. Спасибо. 95.153.133.109 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

   Выглядит неплохо. Я не признаю источники которые вы удалили, а думаю что вы вероятно правы о ними. А одно совет: описание измененах в статье надо быть по-английски в enWiki. В моем странице возможно рассговаривать по русски потому что здесь могу установить правила, а генерално по enWiki английский язык обязательный. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

   Понял. Большое спасибо. В дальнейшем буду править статью и отписываться Вам, если Вы не против.95.153.129.145 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

NPP School

Hello, I just noticed that you adopt users at NPP Academy. Can you take me in? Let me see how much I am in and outside water. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I'm open to this. Could you describe the kind of help you're looking for a bit more? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is that, I would like to understand GNG/SNG policies more. How to analyse SIGCOV, how to treat a subject passes which seems to pass WP:SNG and is not WP:ROUTINE, or Run of the mill. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I meant more along the lines of what format: are you looking for formal lessons, or just someone you can ask for a second opinion when you come across an article you aren't sure how to evaluate? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Formal lessons. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, ok. The only existing formal lesson plan is intended more for editors who are totally unfamiliar with NPP processes. So, our options are:

1. Go through the standard NPPSCHOOL anyway, with the knowledge that a lot of it should be easy review rather than new information.
2. You identify in a bit more detail what aspects you'd like to focus on (e.g. which SNGs, specific cases where you're not sure how to assess sigcov) and I'll try to come up with problems that build your ability to address these cases
3. We don't do formal lessons, and instead we just keep an open rapport where you can ask me for an opinion on articles that you aren't sure how to assess (and I'll occasionally point out an interesting article for you to tackle)

Let me know what you prefer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, Rehards SNG, I have understood WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NPROF and like criterias which are related to academics. I can analyse an article related to WP:1E also. I face the issue with businessman, cricketers, influencers etc. For business, for example, I once I moved Draft:Chinu Kala to mainspace because of its coverage. But it was later drafted by some admin due to COI and related issues and then rejected timely as WP:Run of the mill. As you said, (e.g. which SNGs, specific cases where you're not sure how to assess sigcov) and I'll try to come up with problems that build your ability to address these cases. Here is the first case with BUSINESS related people. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 02:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, I see, I think I can work with that. I'll ping you to another page once I've drafted some questions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My article

Hi, you reverted my edits on Kamal Uddin saying that it is as per WP:G4. I have read G4 and it says that it excludes "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". My article is quite different to the previous one that existed, and is well-written, well-sourced and fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. SalamAlayka (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

SalamAlayka, the version I was comparing against was the version that was deleted following this discussion. While the articles had some superficial differences, the list of sources was almost identical, and the core issues from the AfD remain unaddressed. Even just evaluating the new article on its own terms, the sources provided are overwhelmingly primary sources and/or coverage that briefly mentions that Uddin performed a concert without providing any significant analysis of the subject. I would suggest posting a request at WP:DRV if you would like to pursue this issue further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This editor instead tried to game the system and published the article under Kamal Uddin (imam). Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I have come to know about your plan of adopting a new user , will u please adopt me for the better understanding of Wikipedia for me I will be obliged if you will agreeFaster than fairies (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Faster than fairies, what kind of editing work are you interested in doing? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Improperly cited ,adding citations, and copy editing of all variety of article , also want to add information in very short article thank u Faster than fairies (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Faster than fairies, you should check out the Wikipedia:Task Center, particularly the Maintenance section from the sound of it. Feel free to ask me questions if you get stuck on something. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain me what is benefit of become a adoptee or a student of someone Faster than fairies (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Faster than fairies, it's whatever we agree on. Right now I'm not really sure you need much more help than just being pointed in the correct direction. But if you need more help, you can ask. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

ThanksFaster than fairies (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Yamini Singh (actress) Remove from draftspace to namespace

Please review again Draft:Yamini Singh (actress) page and remove from draft to namespace. I have expand this article with reliable source. I think article is ready for move to namespace. Thank You Pk41946 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Pk41946, you can do that yourself, no need to get me involved. You can find instructions here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for your advice. Pk41946 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guy

How to Be the Administrators JR Choto (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

JR Choto, I think you'll find the answer to your question at Wikipedia:Administrators. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hi there! I am seeking an admin (unrelated to current issue) to ask for some advice. If you can spare a bit of your time, I am seeking your opinion on the behaviour of superwifi over at this AFD. Besides the AFD, I will like to point you to my talk page, Kohlrabi Pickle's talk page and superwifi's talkpage also. The question is does this warrant a trip to ANI? I am reluctant to go to ANI (and not sure even if this is a case or not) but just looking at options. This does not mean I will go to ANI even if you think I can/should go to ANI. Thanks a lot for your time! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Justanothersgwikieditor, I think that at this point the best move is to wait for the AfD to end, see if there's any further disruption, and then take it from there. The only reason to go to ANI before then would be if there's a new spate of personal attacks or blatant bad faith attempts to derail or subvert the AfD, but based on the trajectory of the various talk page discussions I would be that things will calm down. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you for taking the time and I will heed your advice as such. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Justanothersgwikieditor and Rosguill. Superwifi has moved on from accusing me of bullying and canvassing to a veiled accusation of dishonesty: see here. They persist in accusing me of a COI without evidence, see here. They also persist in editing their own comments, which throws the chain out of context: see here and here. This is after my informing them that they cannot keep editing their comments and giving them detailed advice on what to do if they have an issue with another editor's conduct here. I very much want to let the matter rest but it is hugely unpleasant to have these unfounded accusations repeatedly pop up on a public AfD. Is there anything you can do, short of us going to ANI? At some point, I am hoping to have those accusations purged from the page's history, rather than have a simple strikethrough on them. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kohlrabi Pickle, I've left a note on their talk page telling them to stop casting aspersions. Again, given that this is all focused on one article that is currently at AfD, I think that the matter will likely resolve itself once the AfD runs its course, and ANI is likely to just throw more fuel on the fire. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosguill, I'm happy with this. I will let the matter rest as long as nothing else happens. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kohlrabi Pickle, this is why i chose to disengage with superwifi, which is plainly a SPA as of now. His behavioural patterns can be established easily, once feeling threatened that the article will be deleted due to policies, he will turn innocent and try to seek forgiveness and common ground. Once that is achieved, he will continue to ensure the article does not get deleted by attacking the both of us. This is a continuing trend and perhaps cease after the AfD. I strongly suggest you disengage and attends to more important things on hand, aka your exams.

Rosguill, thanks for the patience. I hope we do not need your further advice and intervention after the AfD. Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Millennium Campus Network

Hi, I am disappointed that you did not notify me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Campus Network (2nd nomination), as I have made significant contributions to that article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. This may have been an oversight. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, my apologies, generally I just rely on the automated notifications from Twinkle. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding User:Timwikisidemen

Hi Rosguill. Last month you left a message on the talk page of Timwikisidemen in regards to their edit warring. They have continued this sort of behaviour at KSI discography today, repeatedly restoring redundant, repetitive reference formatting without any sort of explanation for their actions. I have left five talk page messages now, and they have instead insisted on indirectly reverting me. I have cleaned up the article, but this user is ignoring any sort of correspondence left for them and it appears to be something they do in this topic area repeatedly. Ad Orientem blocked them last month for disruptive behaviour, and I would have notified him, but he is currently travelling, so I was hoping you could intervene. Thanks. Ss112 11:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ss112, their last edits as of my reading this are a response to your messages and no further attempt to revert you. At this point, 6 hours later, while there may be a case to be made for a CIR-based restriction, I'm not comfortable imposing an indefinite block at this time and it's not clear what any shorter term block would accomplish. I'll try to keep an eye on the situation in case there's further disruption, but at this point if you want to pursue this forward I think ANI would be more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Political Protests at Talk Pages ?!

Hi, hope you are doing well so far... I recently saw a couple of talk pages like this one User_talk:Abiodun_Ayobami - honestly I am not really sure if it violates WP:TNO ... what's your opinion? CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, he changed it immediately after my post to your page :=) CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to rejoin NPP School

Hi, I am back. Could you join me in the NPP School? Sorry I was away due to COVID-19. Angus1986 (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986 of course, feel free to pick up where you left off. Here's the link for convenience. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wemys.

Bernspeed (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC) I think we should keep that because even though it is not used much in the book, it is still more relevant because Wemyss is a much more common name than Wemys. That is the only reference with one S in the Wemys (or Wemyss) that I can think of.

Bernspeed, I don't think that it's a useful redirect pointing at the current target, as even in the unlikely event that someone will search for Percy for Lord of the Flies this way, they will find no relevant information about it at the target. The term is, however, obscure enough that I don't think it's worth the effort to fight over. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

About You (company)

Hi Rosguill, I was sorry to notice that the 'autopatrolled' permission had been revoked from my account. I was not aware the About You-article sounded promotional, but I am also not that unhappy with the text that resulted from Nerfdart's editing - certainly still an adequate article with some frills removed, so no huge qualms here... Despite the changes, the 'advert'-tag on the article remains. Do you think it could be removed then - or do you perceive further issues with promotional tone or unsupported claims? So far, I have addressed a 'citation missing'-hint, and will gladly contribute further to improve the article. Thank you --Kvaloya (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Kvaloya, I'm ok with you removing the tag, although you may want to check with the editor that placed it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending RFC description change

I've made my arguments more concise and I have provided working citations just waiting for your opinion--Yacoob316 (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Hello, I have a pending RfC at Talk:Si Kaddour Benghabrit. Unfortunately, I did not write a very clear description (first one I did myself), and comment hasn't been forthcoming. I have also engaged in a looong discussion with the other user at Talk:Si Kaddour Benghabrit#March 2020, which others probably don't want to read through. Would it be improper to fix the RfC description now? إيان (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

إيان, It's fine to amend RfC statements, especially if no one has really responded yet. You should generally frame RfCs as a choice between two different versions of the article. From reading through the first bit of the existing discussion a decent framing could be should the article state that Abdelqader Benghabrit translated the Treaty of Fes into Arabic?.

If you'll consider my own opinion first, however: Without opining on the POV accusations (I haven't looked into them and don't intend to at this time), I think that your argumentation for crediting Abdelqader is original research. Yes it seems trivial to identify that the French government's translator translated a document in his possession, but abductive reasoning is outside of the bounds of what editors are allowed to do when referencing claims on Wikipedia. I'm willing to assume that you did this in good faith and don't think that you intentionally misrepresented the source, but ultimately I think that your arguments are pretty clearly in contravention of our policy on original research, and my recommendation would be for you to concede the point. I would suggest reading through WP:OR carefully so that you understand both the reasoning and application behind Wikipedia's policy on original research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I organized my sources a little bit more, in case it helps clarify my argument:

==== * Da’wat al-Haqq: ====

"لكن الديبلوماسية الفرنسية استغلت ظروف تحول قيادة الجيش الفرنسي في فاس من وضعية التعاون العسكري إلى وضعية الإرهاب ومحاصرة السلطان، فأوفدت السفير (يوجين رينو) لمحاولة إقناع السلطان بفكرة معاهدة الحماية في محادثات طويلة كان يقوم بدور الترجمة فيها قدور بن غبريط الذي كان يحظى بثقة السلطان.

"But the French diplomacy took advantage of the circumstances of the transformation of the French army leadership in Fez from a position of military cooperation to a position of intimidation and siege around the Sultan. It sent Ambassador Eugene Regnault to try to convince the Sultan of the idea of a treaty of protection in long talks in which Kaddour Benghabrit—who had the trust of the Sultan–was playing the role of translator."

==== * Zamane: ====

"عندما وقع المغرب معاهدة الحماية في 30 مارس 1912، نشر نصها باللغة الفرنسية في العدد الأول من الجريدة الرسمية المغربية بتاريخ 1 نونبر 1912. لم تكن هناك بعد جريدة رسمية باللغة العربية، إذ لم تبدأ في الصدور إلا في فاتح فبراير من السنة الموالية. ومنذ ذلك التاريخ، احتفظ التاريخ بالنص الفرنسي لمعاهدة الحماية، وبدا وكأنه النص الوحيد الموجود، وصدرت له ترجمات عديدة فيما في كتابات المؤرخين والسياسيين. رغم ذلك، فإن هناك نصا معربا قديما بقدم المعاهدة نفسها، لكننا لا نعلم إذا ما كان نسخة عربية رسمية للمعاهدة. ترجم هذا النص قدور بن غبريط، صاحب الأدوار المتعددة من مستشار سلطاني وترجمان ومكلف بالبرتوكول، وقنصل شرفي لفرنسا. ولم يتم الاكتفاء بهذه الترجمة بل صادق عليها «بلان»، نائب القنصل الفرنسي، والترجمان الأول المفوض في المفوضية الفرنسية بطنجة. وتوجد نسخة هذه الترجمة اليوم ضمن أرشيف مديرية الوثائق الملكية بالرباط، وقد نشر نصها في الكتاب الصادر عن المعهد الملكي للبحث في تاريخ المغرب: «تاريخ المغرب: تحيين وتركيب». "

"When Morocco signed the Treaty of the Protectorate on March 30, 1912, its text was published in French in the first issue of the Moroccan Official Gazette on 1 November 1912. There was no official Arabic-language newspaper yet, as publishing in Arabic only began on February 1st of the following year. Since then, history has retained the French text of the Treaty of the Protectorate, which appeared to be the only one available, and numerous translations by historians and politicians have been published. However, there is an old text of the treaty, as old as the treaty itself, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the Treaty. This text was translated by Kaddour Ben Ghabrit, a sultan's advisor, translator, protocol-incharge, and honorary consul of France. This translation was not the sole document of the treaty, but it was endorsed by the French Vice-Consul, the first commissioner of the French Legation in Tangier. The copy of this translation is now in the archives of the Directorate of Royal Documents in Rabat, and was published in the book of the Royal Institute for Research: Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis)."

In other words, he translated the treaty at the time of its signing, though it might not be an official copy.

==== * Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis): ====

This is the source Zamane cited at the end, with the page of the translated treaty with Benghabrit's signature appearing on page 526 (page 545 of the PDF)

==== * Treaty of Fes ====

This is the official document from the server of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the final page is identical to the page printed in Tariikh al-Maghreb. If features Benghabrit's signature and the text:

يشهد الواضعان خط يدهما أسفله صحة التعريب أعلاه و مطابقته للنص الفرنساوي حرفاحرفا كما يشهدان بإصلاح التاريخ

"The signatories below bear witness to the authenticity of the Arabization above and its conformity to the French text letters for letter, as they bear witness to the correctness of the date (March 30, 1912)"

According to WP:TRANSCRIPTION translations and transcription are not considered OR, and in the spirit of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, saying that his signature is there under this text shouldn't count as an "interpretation" of the primary source document. إيان (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and I actually conceded that I thought the user had a point. However, I tried to work with the user to find wording that we could agree on, but the user constant breach of WP:5P4 and not interested in reaching an agreement. Also, Isn't this WP:3RR: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Si_Kaddour_Benghabrit&action=history? إيان (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

إيان, re the signatures on the treaty, if we were looking to prove a claim that Benghabrit signed the document, I think we'd be ok. However, I'm not sure we can assume that his having signed the document means that he translated it. The Zamane source I think is sufficient for supporting a claim that Benghabrit translated a version of the document, but given the ambiguity in the source as to whether it was the official translation I could see an argument claiming that mention is undue. Personally, I feel like I come down more on the WP:NOTBLUE side of the fence.

That last revert (or two, given the reverted page move) is a violation of 3RR, but you are over the line as well. Any further reverts from either of you will be met with blocks. At this point it's time to wait for the RfC to resolve if no one's budging in the talk page discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been and remain happy to budge. Would something like this be appropriate given the sources above?

=== Treaty of Fes ===

The signature of Abdelqader Ibn Ghabrit to the left of that of Sultan Abd al-Hafid, certifying the Arabic translation on the Treaty of Fes, signed March 30, 1912.

In March 1912, Abdelqader Benghabrit, in his capacity as interpreter at the French Legation in Tangier and as a trusted advisor to Sultan Abdelhafid, interpreted negotiations between the sultan and the French diplomat Eugène Regnault at the Royal Palace in Fes, which culminated in the signing of the Treaty of Fes that established the French Protectorate in Morocco on March 30.

... e por acaso, o seu português é muito bom. Você ta de parabéns! إيان (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

إيان, muito obrigado. As for your suggested copy, that seems reasonable to me, but I'm not the person you need to convince at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you. I've amended the summary on the talk page. Should I also amend it at the noticeboard? إيان (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

إيان, the noticeboard should pick it up using a bot so I don't think it's necessary to amend that. However, I don't think the statement is sufficiently neutral. IMO the most neutral framing would be {{tq|What level of detail can be supported about Benghabrit's involvement in the Treaty of Fes and then provide links to the cited material without argument. Your arguments go in the discussion section. I would suggest looking at other RfCs, you'll get a sense of the preferred format.

Also, the way the rfc bot works is that it copies everything up to the first signature. So you may want to reformat it as:

new RfC statement, signature

old statement, sign

but at a certain point it does become cleaner just to close the section and start a new section with the formatting right from the start. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! Could you take a look at it now? إيان (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

إيان, I think that the RfC statement is fine. You may want to try to make your arguments a bit more concise (you can use {{Collapse}} to gracefully hide your comments without deleting or striking them), because as written the discussion is uninviting and I can't see people jumping to participate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Great advice; thank you so much! إيان (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, I hope you're well. This RfC is still pending, even though I've found another source that should settle the case. The other user said weeks ago that s/he would comment on my annotations, but it seems this user is filibustering. This same user also just reverted my valid edit on an separate article, also related to Moroccan history. Could you give me some advice? إيان (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

1) I don't have to do anything you want me. The RfC that you started can run its course with or without my intervention. 2) Unless I'm mistaken, you were meant to correct the mistranslation, yet you still haven't (your call, I don't care). 3) The revert you're referring to is a highly contentious bullshit that makes it look as though Smara was Moroccan (which is factually incorrect). No need to be a genius, just look at the map (in the article) that shows the French occupation areas and dates. 4) Rosguill fell for your manipulations once, I'm pretty sure they won't fall for it again. 5) If you have anything to say about me, you do the proper thing and take it to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

إيان, at this point, there's still 10 days left on the RfC, at which point it should be considered "no consensus" if no one else weighs in on the discussion. You could try taking the case to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and hopefully find either a resolution through mediated discussion, or at least get help writing a concise and neutral RfC for another stab at getting community input.

Regarding the second issue, you should start a discussion on the talk page for that article. Without having looked into the issue much, I'm not sure I buy that it's out of scope given that the article is about the "French conquest of Morocco" as opposed to a more narrow scope of "French protectorate in Morocco". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill—got it. Thanks for the explanation. إيان (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I'm sorry for bringing this to your talk page, but when I tried to reach out to M.Bitton on his talk page, he reverted my edit, commenting " You response needs to be in context, and therefore belongs in the discussion (about me) that you started without my knowledge (TW)." So here it is:

:::::::::::::Hello, M.Bitton, I hope you are well. I'll respond to your comment here. I solicited the help of Rosguill because I was new to the process and I knew that user to be fair, balanced, and pleasant to work with.

I'm not familiar with ANI but I don't think I'm interested in taking this there, but I am frustrated with how our interactions have gone. In addition to using disrespectful language with me, you have unfairly characterized my actions as "manipulation," insinuated that I was willfully deceiving others, and otherwise treated me unfairly.

I don't deny that you have valid points to make. You are clearly very knowledgable—both about Wikipedia and these topics in North African history. I would like for us to resolve our differences and work together on amicable terms. I also expect to be, at a bare minimum, respected as a colleague with whom you are working toward a mutual goal of enriching the encyclopedia. إيان (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

إيان (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

إيان, I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're asking of me, if anything. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, I tried to reach out to M.Bitton to communicate directly so we could resolve our differences, and this user removed my message from her/his talk page telling me I should respond here, but has not yet responded. The RfC has since expired, so I amended the information about Ben Ghabrit's role in the Treaty of Fes in the article to conform with points raised in the discussion, and I also added other cited information to the article in this edit, all of which this user has just removed, stating that consensus hasn't been reached in the RfC and that the RfC should be closed by an administrator.

I'm not canvassing you to intervene, but I would be grateful for any advice on what I should do in this situation. إيان (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

إيان, the RfC looks to me like a clear no consensus, since no one appears to have participated other than you two (I also think that this outcome is clear enough that no formal close is needed). With that in mind, I'm not really sure what changes could possibly be licensed on your part, other than direct concessions to M. Bitton's position, should you feel motivated to make such concessions. In cases of no consensus, the article should reflect the stable status quo ante from before the dispute, which in this case appears to be M. Bitton's preferred version. I don't think that there's much of a chance of you being able to make any further headway on this issue, as I doubt that M. Bitton would take kindly to being asked to participate in DRN again or in another RfC being opened. I would suggest giving this a break and focusing on other articles, maybe coming back and opening a new RfC a few months from now if you feel so inclined. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your guidance. إيان (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

sorry

I was doing redirects at the time, Im not certain how this happened[6],?..... you can check my edit history--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, don't worry about it, that form message gets sent out whenever you unreview a page, even if you don't add a message. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect reviewed

Hi, I noticed you reviewed three redirects I created and added categories to them. Is there a list of categories to add to new pages/redirects somewhere so I can reference and add them when I create them? Thanks, bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, you can find a list at WP:TMR, but you may find it easier just to use either WP:TWINKLE or Sagittarius, which have built in interfaces for quickly adding redirect categories. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Request

Amirul Momenin Manik review this page. Arif (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Md Arif bd, please be patient, the new pages queue is long and someone will get to it eventually. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking for an adoptee

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)

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)

I'm not sure if you're aware of this

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! —GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 01:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see Suffusion of Yellow's post above this about the same topic. Sorry! —GalaxyDog^{talk • contribs} 01:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)