Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Merry Christmas

Dear Rosguill,

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

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

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

F.Blaubiget, merry Christmas. Double spaces at the beginning of a new sentence is standard in some English language style guides. I don't use it in my own writing, but it is a long established practice. I'm not really sure offhand what our WP:MOS has to say about the issue, but I would assume that it's probably handled a la WP:ENGVAR: i.e. start articles with whichever convention you prefer, but try to be consistent within each article and don't go out of your way to flip everything. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Rosguill and understood: I had never noticed this practice before. Probably I will see it more often now (selective perception) but won´t touch it - consistent within each article is important. Have a nice New Year's Eve celebration! --F.Blaubiget (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Christmas tree in field.jpg
Merry Christmas (:

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

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

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

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

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

Reply regarding ANRFC

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

Crossroads, I'll look into this again tomorrow, but if all they're doing is continue to argue that's their decision to waste their time. Now if they're also trying to actually edit the policy text, that's a different story. signed, Rosguill talk 01:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
"Two other editors who should know better"? Rosguill, I'm one of the editors discussing whether one disputed sentence belongs in the policy. It doesn't, in my view (it was added a few years ago without discussion). Which discussion does Crossroads want you to close? SarahSV (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The whole thing at WT:V. I'm sorry and I really respect your opinion on other things, but I don't understand why you are arguing as though it somehow doesn't have consensus. Regardless of whether it had consensus in 2014 (and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS at a major policy page has some weight), it definitely has consensus as of 2020 after the RfC. On what basis could someone argue otherwise? There is no stronger consensus than a Village Pump RfC, is there? If you really want to get rid of it you would need to start another RfC at a central location, but we just had one and, as you know, doing another right away is frowned upon (and there is no reason to think this one would go differently). Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
And I only came to Rosguill because they had addressed my original closure request at ANRFC. I wasn't hand-picking or anything. Crossroads -talk- 05:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The sentence in question is technically poorly written, so I tried recently to copy edit it without changing the meaning. I found I couldn't do it, because I don't know what it's saying, apart from WP:BRD. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Well yes, but it depends on a lot of other factors. The important point for me is that the sentence isn't about sourcing. The sourcing policy is about the need for sources. It isn't about consensus. It's important when writing core content policy that you not wade too much into other policies and guidelines, because then you have to keep monitoring other pages to make sure there are no contradictions. So WP:V should be about sourcing. That's why we're still discussing that sentence. SarahSV (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The RfC touched on all that. Regardless of how a handful of editors on WT:V now feel about it, it's a very recently settled matter that it isn't being moved to or replaced by WP:CON and that changes to it could make it harder to remove bad content. Verifiability does touch on it because that content may not be verifiable to the claimed sources (either not in them outright or synthesized) or the sources may not be reliable. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
That sentence says nothing about sourcing, and I don't see why moving it to Wikipedia:Consensus, also a policy, would make anything harder. Why do you care which page it's on? The editor who opened the RfC had no experience of writing an RfC about a content policy. One written by several editors with experience of editing WP:V might be received differently. Whether that will be tried, I don't know, but people have to be allowed to talk. SarahSV (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll give one more reply here just to clarify my thinking since you asked. I suppose it could technically be divided into two separate questions: should it be at WP:CON instead, and should its meaning be changed? I don't see any issue right now with it hypothetically being on the other page with the same meaning, but the effort to move it over there has always been part of the effort to change its meaning to something like "without consensus to remove, material has to stay". That latter idea has very definitely been rejected. Crossroads -talk- 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Having read through the discussion at issue a bit more carefully, I stand by my decision to decline to close it. I don't think there's any question about the outcome of the RfC portion, and editors are allowed to continue discussing related matters down-thread. If and when a local consensus for a change is formed, you can discuss whether an RfC is needed to make changes or not, but I don't think there's any danger of editors imposing a local consensus out of process (nor would formally closing the RfC portion make much of a difference in that regard). signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks for thinking about it again. Crossroads -talk- 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete RfD closure

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

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

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

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

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

Please remove new page reviewer

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

Eyebeller, I agree that now is not the right time for NPP permissions, but I would encourage you to keep trying at AfC. If you're looking for help learning the ropes, consider asking me or another editor at WP:NPPSCHOOL. signed, Rosguill talk 04:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks interesting, would you be able to enrol me in the school? Eyebeller (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Eyebeller, here's the link, feel free to start at your own pace User:Rosguill/Eyebeller NPPSCHOOL signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Die Hard/Archive 2

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

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

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

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

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

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

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



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

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

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


Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hello Rosguill:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

Starzoner (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Did my edits pass your reviews?

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

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

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

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

Epic Rap Battles of History redirects

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

1234qwer1234qwer4 first I've ever noticed that, not sure what to make of it. signed, Rosguill talk 08:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I can certainly add Category:Epic Rap Battles of History to all of them while retargeting, but the other categories are specific to the episodes. I really didn't want to do that manually. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4, if you're going through them to retarget to sections anyway, the easier method may be to restore the pre-close state and then change the target to the correct location. Might be worth running by a technical request related noticeboard to see if they have any ideas for either resolving the current situation or fixing the bug that caused it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Any updates? As it seems from Special:Diff/885852612, @Richhoncho: opposes this categorisation (btw, due to the lack of Category:Epic Rap Battles of History on the redirect, this one had not even been part of the nomination). Should I just retarget them without restoring the categories? Otherwise, some kind of mass-revert would be needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4, I think retargeting without restoring categories is fine. signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I had no time to do this yet, but is the tool continuing to remove categories from redirects? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
1234qwer1234qwer4, in the case of this edit, I see that it removed redirect categories, which are really implemented as templates. I think that that's actually an appropriate automated action to take on an RfD closed as redirect, as rcats generally describe the relationship between a redirect and its target, and thus are often going to be inaccurate after the target is changed. signed, Rosguill talk 15:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I did the changes (didn't make it before the New Year). Apparently, the tool also skipped quite a few pages, so they weren't targeting the list in the first place; that caused a bit of confusion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, I created some redirects that were missing to fill the gaps. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CaptainGalaxy 00:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Minor PoV matter

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

SMcCandlish, sure I'll make that change. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thankee.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

NPP School Request

Happy New Year Rosguill,

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

Roller26, sure, I'm willing to help. Based on your track record with various deletion procedures and editing in general, you're actually already at the level where I would consider giving you a month-long trial run with the reviewer permissions. With that in mind, are there specific aspects of new page reviewing that you think you need to study first, or would you like to go straight to a trial run? signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thank you for the offer. If it suits you, I would like to go over some specifics of NPR before reviewing pages. I would like to cover the following topics: 1. Understanding issues when an article satisfies SNG but not GNG 2. Source Assessment Table 3. Copyvio 4. COI/PAID editors 5. Deletion Policy (PROD, BLPPROD) and alternatives (Merge, redirect, draftify, NPPdraft) 6. Tagging. Roller26 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Roller26, head on over to User:Rosguill/Roller26 NPPSCHOOL whenever you're ready. Read through the various SNGs listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines and then answer the first set of questions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Happy New Year! Rosguill :)

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

NPR

Hello Rosguill,

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

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

Tatupiplu, I think that your track record is such that I would normally be comfortable conferring a month long trial run, and would expect you to qualify for full permissions afterward. However, as I've made decisions regarding giving you NPR permission before, I'm going to ask you to file a request at the request for permissions page, as I like avoid reviewing multiple requests from the same editor since I find it harder to be impartial in those situations. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, I've requested permission a few days back. I'm waiting for someone to review it. Can you place your comments there so that it helps the other admin to make better decisions :)? - Tatupiplu'talk 21:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

RE:Big Soto moved to draftspace

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

Enmanuel, could you explain how you came by this photo? signed, Rosguill talk 06:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill I took it from the record label --Enmanuel (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Enmanuel, In that case you should not claim the image as your own work, and unless they have explicitly released the image as CC-licensed or free to use we cannot use it here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Advice on an article title

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

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

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

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.MarioJump83! 03:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirect review for 🍜

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

Thanks

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

NPP

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

Delete or Re-direct Chantal Wiertz

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

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

Invitation to Administrators board

Thank you for your review!

Rosguill Thank you very much for reviewing the Matt Gallagher (filmmaker) article! Kind Regards, LorriBrown (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 25 December 2020

== ↑↑ OMG! ↑↑ TIME TRAVELERS AMONGST US! ↑↑ 🙄 ↑↑ ==] 

       🤔 Oh, please, Abishe and Empire AS tell us of the future, oh great tavelers! 🤭😜

       Might want to pay attention to WHEN you use CURRENTYEAR and NEXTYEAR.  😉   You guys didn't preview/proofread your post now did ya.  Ya didn't, did ya.  Have a good New Year anyway!  👍😄

       Quisizyx (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Quisizyx, well there was an issue in the template that I forgot to add the includeonly tags inside {CURRENTYEAR} & {NEXTYEAR} therefore they weren't substituted but transcluded and all this happened. I fixed that soon but it was too late to correct this on all the pages as it was substituted. Happy New Year too. Thank you! Empire AS Talk! 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year

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

How do you curate new pages so quickly?

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

Eyebeller, those are redirects, which usually only take a few seconds to review. Actual articles take me considerably longer. Most days I do a full day's worth of redirects from the backlog (which has a shorter cutoff than the general backlog and thus needs to be patrolled separately), which is around 100-300 redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, didn't notice that. I really do want to get into new page reviewing/AfC after completely leaving AfC for a few days (requesting removal from the reviewer list) just to mentally calm down as it does seem like a fun thing to do but I'm not sure where to start. I would like to get the new page reviewer right as well eventually as the articles which I did review, I found it quite enjoyable. I also apologise if you found the way in which I communicated with you to be rude. Any suggestions? Eyebeller 23:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, well if you're looking for training, we can start the course I set up for you at User:Rosguill/Eyebeller NPPSCHOOL. Alternatively, if you'd rather just build up your familiarity with the relevant skills on your own, I'd suggest signing up for AfC again, and participating in AfD discussions on a regular basis. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, how about we do the course and then once you feel that I have a better understanding you can assign me the new page reviewer right? Eyebeller 23:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, sounds like a plan. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Great, should I ping you after I do a part of the course? Note: I have already done the first part. Eyebeller 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, it's not necessary, I keep a pretty close watch on my watchlist. Feel free to ping me if I ever let something slip by for a few days. signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A question relating to the school since I'm not sure where to ask there. The sources, that don't count towards WP:GNG, are they allowed in the article, just don't count towards notability or should they be completely removed? Eyebeller 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, you can feel free to just carve out spaces at the bottom of a section to ask questions on the school page. But to keep this answer in the same place, yes such sources are absolutely allowed. Sources may fall short of contributing toward notability but can still hold up a given claim just fine. For example, trivial coverage in a reliable source may support a minor claim, and coverage in a non-independent source may be usable to provide non-controversial details or attributed opinions about a subject. As a new page reviewer, I'd even suggest that unreliable sources are preferable to no sources at all, and should just be tagged with [better source needed] or [unreliable source?] (or a top level {{unreliable sources}}) as appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and for doing the school with me, I really like it and am learning a lot. Eyebeller 23:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I think you may have forgotten to check my NPP school. It’s been nearly two days since I last finished the task. Thanks. Eyebeller 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Ping about the NPP school. Eyebeller 15:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Windows 94

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

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

Draft:Ellen Alexander (actress) Tag Team

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

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

Star Gold

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

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

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

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

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

References

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4] [5]

[6] [7]

[8]

[9]

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

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

Can I move Draft:CalFile back to CalFile

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

0mtwb9gd5wx, the article is written like an ad and is flatly unacceptable in its current form. DGG is also correct that government weblinks are not sufficient for establishing notability. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is it ad-like? I added non-ca.gov references, to refute:

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

It has quotes and citations from reliable, independent, third-party sources.
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
0mtwb9gd5wx, the entire thing is written like you're telling a story, the way you would in PR or in news coverage, rather than like an encyclopedia article. I'd recommend that you try looking up articles about other government services to get a better sense of how you should be writing articles on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 01:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill The quotes were listed in a readable order, which, besides references, were all that I added to the article. Is this better?....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
0mtwb9gd5wx, I'm sorry, the article is still a long ways from being ready and I don't have more time to help you. The article has indeed been rejected at this point, and I would suggest that you let the matter go. signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to user-talkify a deleted page

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

JJPMaster, I can't seem to find the talk page that you're referring to. signed, Rosguill talk 01:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, I mean Talk:Joshua's number, the talk page of Joshua's number. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
JJPMaster, there's two different versions, one that got deleted in 2015 and one in 2019, which do you want? Neither of them seem particularly noteworthy. signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, I want both, although I'm not sure that's possible; maybe through a histmerge? JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 02:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Chaavu Kaburu Challaga page redirection

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations

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

Saflieni, I think that JBL's comments in the ANI thread are a very concise explanation of the behavior that I'm talking about, and were hardly the only example of such behavior on your part. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not a very respectful response. You accuse me of some misdeeds and not discuss your evidence when I ask for it? You can say a lot of things about me, but unlike most others (look at Drmies' rants) I always supply plenty of evidence when I criticize someone, and I haven't done anything the other editors haven't. Saflieni (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Saflieni, the incident identified by JBL, where you claimed that ArbCom did not decline to hear your case and that the page was already flooded with new insults against scholars and the usual evidenceless "comments" by Drmies is an example of allegations against other editors and misrepresentation of the case history.
The difference between your position and that of other editors is that up until the filing of the ANI report, you had been editing against consensus and dismissing other editors' concerns as failing to respect sources that you have identified as experts and/or a conspiracy against your point of view on the topic. When you find yourself on the losing end of a consensus, however small, the next step after local discussion has failed to change the consensus is to seek outside dispute resolution through DRN, RFC or 3O. Repeatedly insisting that all other involved editors are in the wrong is not going to get you anywhere. It is this behavior, if continued, that is going to end up getting you topic-banned. signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
No offense, but these are misunderstandings. Please allow my side of the story:
  1. you claimed that ArbCom did not decline to hear your case. That's not what I said but that's beside the point. What happened was part of a discussion that started with Drmies' insults about that ridiculous arbitration case and my Arbcom stunt. I responded with: my arbitration request was not "a stunt" but supported by 25 diffs; evidence of polarizing remarks and insults against scientists, mainly. HoC then said the request was declined, which suggested that the evidence I talked about was rejected, which is of course not true. There was also the fact that I had withdrawn, so it wasn't really declined, although I conceded: Some arbitrators who had missed the email voted to decline because they regarded the case - about fringe theories and advocacy - as a content issue. None of them has commented on the evidence. Then HoC kept going by showing the old notification instead of the amended one to suggest I was lying. That's why I asked HoC to be honest, and I added a link to the notification which says "withdrawn". However, on their Talk page, HoC suggested again that I lied, this time about the date of my email to the Committee. I complained about that too. At least they struck out that suggestion.
  2. "...the page was already flooded with new insults against scholars and the usual evidenceless "comments" by Drmies" is an example of allegations against other editors and misrepresentation of the case history. I beg to differ. These are facts, not allegations. I complained twice about the off-topic rant by Drmies which contained insults, false allegations, uncivil language and lacked any evidence.[12], but my messages were kept on hold as "awaiting moderation" for a couple of days, which is why I lost confidence and withdrew my request. HoC's new attack against scholars is also a fact, not an allegation. HoC wrote this: Calling out people who criticize Rwanda's RPF as "revisionsts" and "genocide deniers", (aka "genocide blackmail") is very common. In Rever's case, it has already resulted in death threats and in stories such as "How Judi Rever is a cynical genocide revisionist, intent on murdering victims a second time." [13] What HoC says here is that scholars who qualify Rever's fringe theories as a form of denial are somehow part of an international scheme to attack Rever on behalf of the Rwandan government. I'm not sure how I, by referring to this horrible accusation, end up as the bad person.
  3. you had been editing against consensus and dismissing other editors' concerns as failing to respect sources that you have identified as experts and/or a conspiracy against your point of view on the topic. Actually I did not edit since my block, except for a couple of attempts to save edits from deletion. I can't be punished twice for what happened earlier. About the alleged consensus, WP:CON says: consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) and: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I believe this gave me the right to insist on editing according to NPOV and RS guidelines, on an accurate representation of the credible sources, and to criticize undue weight given to non RS and non experts over scholarly literature. In a nutshell, it's the Eiffeltower in Madrid analogy. If you read the debates, over the past couple of weeks, you'll see that my focus was on the literature and on defending scholars. Btw, they listed the Eiffeltower analogy as an "attack". Compare this to their attacks against scholars. Something is off here, don't you think? Saflieni (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Saflieni, Actually I did not edit since my block, except for a couple of attempts to save edits from deletion. Those edits included edit warring, and were a justifiable reason to bring the dispute back to ANI given the extent of the dispute up until that point. I've read through your arguments multiple times and don't need them rehashed on my talk page.
    Wikipedia arguments are like quicksand: the more you fight, the more you end up stuck. You don't need to respond to every allegation made at ANI, you just need to indicate that you are willing to comply with conflict resolution processes (in this case, either RfC or DRN) without editing disruptively or making a big fuss. For your own sake, I'd highly recommend not responding to anything else HoC writes in the ANI thread. signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
ANIs are pointless if editors ignore the defence of the accused [14], misinterpret the evidence, and forget to apply the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I don't appreciate the additional false accusation of edit warring when I've explained that my edits have been consistently deleted/reverted from day one and that the other two editors teamed up to avoid problems with 3RR [15][16][17]. I don't understand why everyone seems to be so trigger happy to condemn and block others without getting the facts straight. That's as rude as it is unjust.Saflieni (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review my article

Hello,

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

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

Apaul291003, it looks good for the most part. My main reservation at this point is that it's not clear to me as a non-expert whether the common name of this type of fracture is. My impression from reading the article is that it should probably be called "Torus fracture", and that "buckle fracture" is just an alternative name for it. Is my understanding correct? signed, Rosguill talk 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill Both terms can be used interchangeably and really depends on the person - that's why. Medics call it'torus' but common people might call it 'buckle'. Thanks
Apaul291003 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerns....

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

Rosguill didn't grant me AfC rights. I have had experience in AfD and am going through the NPP school with Rosguill. I'm more concerned about some of the articles you've marked as reviewed. Eyebeller 00:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, unless you have specific diffs in question, please retract the allegation against Praxidicae. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Ahmed Kamal (scientist) was reviewed by them which doesn't meet WP:GNG. Eyebeller 01:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, that article was actually nominated for deletion by Praxidicae and was kept following the AfD, do your homework better next time. signed, Rosguill talk 01:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Didn't show up in the log for some reason. Eyebeller 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Praxidicae, IIRC I believe I granted a trial NPP run based on a good AfD track record and withdrew it following a questionable call later the same day, after which they enrolled in NPPSCHOOL with me. From looking at the AfC edit history, it looks like Primefac was the one who added them to AfC. They've been doing ok at NPPSCHOOL but there's been some issues with identifying neutrality issues and unfamiliar sources. Looking at the issues you raised on their talk page, the copyvio is a false positive, although the other two articles are indeed questionable. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There are far more but I'm just curious also how a user with no demonstrable mainspace experience even got either right to begin with...combined with their combative behavior when questioned is more concerning. I've also heard no complaints about my reviewing at NPP or AFC, so it's news to me.GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, they had a good AfD record and a decent if not terribly challenging CSD record, so I conferred a trial run on a short leash. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Let me explain to you. To be honest, I'm pissed off. I've had a couple of messages like yours in the past few days and a rollercoaster in the past month or so, maybe a bit less. I was finally thinking I've got the hang of this after accepting a few articles which no one complained about and which were marked as patrolled. I thoroughly reviewed this recent accept's sources and per my training and understanding they pass WP:GNG. I had no doubt about that from the FC they set up to that Guardian source. However, that's my understanding, maybe they don't. So when you complained, you really annoyed me. It's not you specifically, just a general complaint like that. Maybe you're right. If articles that I accept get deleted even after training maybe I shouldn't be reviewing but should just stick to counter-vandalism which is what I do best. Eyebeller 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Let me explain to you. To be honest, I'm pissed off. I've had a couple of messages like yours in the past few days and a rollercoaster in the past month or so, maybe a bit less. is an indication that you should listen to the content of the message. If you are good at anti-vandalism, do that and get some mainspace experience in the mean time, then go back to reviewing. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I should just get off Wikipedia since no-one wants me here? Eyebeller 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
That's called wP:PRAM and no one is saying that. Being able to take constructive criticism and reflect on it is important for editing here and also holding important rights. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's very obvious that AfC isn't for me, I'll go and disable the scripts now (again). Eyebeller 01:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Per my training at NPPSCHOOL I am strongly sure that Abba Bichi meets WP:GNG. Eyebeller 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
My point is that any time you are questioned about how they meet it, you obfuscate by throwing out WP:ESSAY pages but haven't identified a single source which meets any criteria. Constructive criticism is how you gain experience here, and considering your lack of it, I'd advise you to engage people with actual answers instead of pushing it off to essays you don't understand yourself. I have serious doubts about your judgement when combined with your complete lack of experience with content in mainspace. This isn't just about Bichi. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
And your response here is even more concerning since you don't understand in the slightest how the review process for NPP or AFC works. I added a UDP tag. I did not review it for suitability. A review does not mean "everything is fine and dandy." GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary is wrong

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

Eyebeller, you stated an intent to stop doing AfC reviews, which is equivalent. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I also stated an intent to do NPP which you easily brushed off. Eyebeller 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eyebeller: will I just indef you instead for tedentious editing ? Would that be easier, or are you going to wise the fuck up ? Nick (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Nah. You wouldn’t indef me as you know you wouldn’t be an administrator anymore and you would cause harm to Wikipedia. Eyebeller 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I've indefinitely blocked Eyebeller for disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Politburo

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

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

Plant stub notability

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

Elmidae, I don't think I'd actually seen WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES; I'm happy to defer if pressed, but something seems a bit off with accepting articles with only one reference that has almost no information about a subject. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the general stance is that in terms of our main watchwords - notability and verificability - the process of describing a taxon, and having it accepted by the various authorities that have a say in the matter, ensures that the required coverage exists, both primary and secondary (thanks to ICZN). I can say that I've never seen one of these deleted at AfD, where they do pop up every so often courtesy of inexperienced nominators - here's the most recent incumbent. I'm not a fan of these one-ref stubs, but they will not be deleted, so I think the template is kind of pointless. Anyway, that's enough of me trying to teach my granny to suck eggs :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_21&oldid=1146003550"