User talk:Rosguill: Difference between revisions

Sinikka Sipilä

Hi Rosguill.

I added more citations from reliable, independent sources. For me it's very strange that you don't recognize one of the most well known institutions in the library world and the Finnish Library Association as reliable, but anyway. Thanks for your feedback to improve this article. Please take a look now and let me know if anything else is needed. Best --Hiperterminal (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hiperterminal, I appreciate your additional work but I'm not certain that the issues have been addressed. The problem isn't that the Finnish Library Association is unreliable per-se, but rather that it is not sufficiently independent of Sipilä. Ideally, we should be able to provide sources that are totally independent, such as newspaper articles, academic papers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I want to understand better your interpretation of independent. I don't know if you noticed back then that this article included a reference to UNESCO and even with that the article was deleted. What happened? And the American Library Association was included as well as reference. In your opinion, is the American Library Association and UNESCO not sufficiently independent of Sipilä? I am happy that the process is over and the article was approved, but I want to understand it because I want to include more librarians as Sipilä. Thank you for your feedback! Best, --Hiperterminal (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiperterminal, the issue is that coverage must be both independent and significant and secondary (per WP:GNG). The UNESCO source here has two issues. One is that it's a primary source document: it's not a report published by UNESCO about libraries (or Sinikka Sipilä), it's a brochure for a conference hosted by UNESCO. It also has almost nothing to say about Sipilä other than that she was there and a brief blurb about her organizational affiliations, which is not significant coverage. It's also not as independent as it could be, given that Sipilä was invited to speak at that conference.

Such a document might be useful to a professional academic researcher or journalist, but it's too incidental for our purposes. On Wikipedia, we can only summarize the information published in reliable, independent sources; anything else is original research. An example of coverage of that conference that would have been usable would have been if a reporter at a professional, reliable newspaper published a writeup of the conference and spent one or more paragraphs specifically talking about Sipilä's contribution. Alternatively, if UNESCO, outside the context of this conference, published a full-length report on libraries in Finland and included several paragraphs+ about Sipilä's work, and Sipilä is not listed as an author of the report, that would also count as significant, independent, secondary coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Mentorship for New Page Patrol

Hello Rosguill, Hope you are doing good"?

I will like to mentor under you for the New Page Patrol program and become a good review ass well. I will stick to your timezome and any convenient channel of communication.

Kolapoimam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kolapoimam. Looking at your edit overview on xtools, it seems that you haven't quite hit the recommended minimum edit count of 1,000 edits for NPP mentorship, so I'm going to decline mentorship at this time. If you're interested in engaging with the anti-vandalism side of Wikipedia, you can try signing up for counter-vandalism training at WP:CVUA. Alternatively, if you want to help out on a wide variety of articles and learn a lot more about Wikipedia in the process, I would try taking up the tasks listed at the community portal. I think that this is a much better method to learn your way around Wikipedia than just creating new articles, as it will put you in touch with a wide variety of different processes and subjects, as well as having more opportunities for collaboration with other editors and generally having lower stakes than article creation. Let me know if you have any other questions. As a final word of advice, new talk page sections are typically placed at the bottom of the page, not the top. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Great,thanks for your input. I really appreciate. Kolapoimam (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Audrey article

I spent 2 hours searching sources (which only point to the mother's YouTube channel and various other social media and some sources from the story) and you want to delete it?

1. These sources are not entirely bogus, these are the PARENTS social media, like the Doering family has a BUNCH of personal information spread-ed on the accounts and it's not really hard to find the information on the news articles either. So these aren't fake, these are real accounts, and hell, even the news that this footage and coverage are all from Jennifer Doering. So yes, the sources are true. 2. The birth date is true because the document was shown on the news footage and again, from Jennifer's family household.

Junkrak (talk) 02:28:35pm —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Junkrak It doesn't matter who the Facebook accounts belong to, they are not secondary sources and thus do not contribute to the subject's notability. While they can be used to support trivial details in the article (although even that is discouraged), they do not contribute toward establishing that we should include the article in Wikipedia. I would in particular suggest that you read through WP:BLP1E, the policy governing articles about people who are famous for a one-time event. Additionally, I would suggest that you make any arguments about keeping the article at the deletion discussion, so that other editors can see them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you happy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Sisters_Reunite Junkrak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Junkrak, I'm not sure I understand the point that you're trying to make here. But at a glance, that article is unlikely to meet WP:NEVENT. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some searching and found out there's a act in there's a act in Utah for identical twins. Does this count? DOES IT EVEN FUCKING COUNT? Sorry, I got pissed inside for a second. https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/ Junkrak (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Junkrak, I'm sorry but I do not understand your argument here. If you are interested in arguing further, I would suggest that you take it to the deletion discussion page, and I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines so that you can actually make valid arguments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of 2019 IPSC Rifle World Shoot

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

Open Space (band)

Could you please chime in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Space_(band)? According to your understanding of the WP:GNG on the example of Talk:Obongjayar, the article meets it.

Have a nice day! Pr12402 7 June 2019

Cause and Effect Tour Elimination

It's so simple to delete in less than a minute an article that I spend hours to create, right?. For users like this is why I don't cooperate more on Wikipedia. --Marcetw (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marcetw, I'm sorry you feel that way, but content on Wikipedia needs to comply with guidelines and policies (in this case, WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. For what it's worth, redirecting an article is not deletion: provided that you can make a case that the subject meets Wikipedia notability standards, we can instantly restore your contributions to the article. I would suggest raising this issue on the redirect's talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Disappointed

Disappointed to see you back off RfA. I hope it just means you didn't have time right now as opposed to being reluctant to do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I don't think I backed off, unless you know something that I don't. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see now, Ritchie jumped the gun a bit on starting the RfA and wanted to double check that it was a good time of day/week. We're rolling now! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

So happy to see all that this was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I'm also excited to see this one go ahead. +1 — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate all the support, although I've gotta say Barkeep49, waking up today ready to start my RfA and seeing a notification that someone started a section called "Disappointed" was a bit of a shock haha. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah you've got me beat for disappointment of waking and seeing that your RfA had been transcluded and then withdrawn. Sorry for any stress I caused. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

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

Hello, Rosguill! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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

• and Congrats in advance[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Bravo!! Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello CAPTAIN RAJU, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Rosguill! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Potential copyvio

Hello.
First, congratulation for being the Reviewer of the Year.
Now for the less funny part: when I separated Monastic Republic of Mount Athos from the Mount Athos article, User:Hughesdarren marked Monastic Republic of Mount Athos as copyvio. I then explained him that all the text from this article came from Wikipedia. He then removed the tag. However, it may be possible that this text, which I took from Mount Athos, is indeed a copyvio. One thing is sure by the look of the Copyvio Detector, one site is copying the other. It may be worth investigating if there is a copyvio, i.e. which site copied which.
Moreover, a check up should be performed for Mount Athos, just to be sure everything is ok. Veverve (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Veverve, It seems like the top site in the copyvio check explicitly mentions Most of the above extracts in this paragraph are from Wikipaedia (as seen on 30th March 2016)., so I think we're good. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry! Veverve (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Sweet Brown Snail by Jason Rhoades and Paul McCarthy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year. Wishing you a happy holiday! ThatMontrealIP (talk) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS: thanks for all your awesome page-reviewing!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A simple gesture

😀👍🏻 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Far, Far Away on Judea's Plain

For Far, Far Away on Judea's Plains, there was a woman in church today who read from the pulpit about it. I found a copy of that at

• http://wchsutah.org/entertainment/far-far-away5.pdf
• http://www.stgeorgetemplevisitorscenter.info/tab/faraway.html

Not sure that document is good as a reference though.Naraht (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Naraht, unfortunately those two links look essentially like self-published sources, and thus are unlikely to be reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RosguillOK, some of it appears to be in the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Museum script at http://dupstgeorge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Museum-Tour-Script-Revised-12-2019.pdf , Not sure if that counts as publishing.Naraht (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Naraht, yeah that sounds rather borderline to me. I think that it could be usable as a citation for an uncontroversial claim, but I don't think it contributes much to notability unless you can establish that the museum's curators are reliable subject matter experts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the Hymn still needs to show notability?Naraht (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Naraht, I don't think that the sources provided thus far meet the general notability guideline, although I think it's likely that somewhere out there some probably do exist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! Now you can drink with the big shots. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Two 'crats are better than one

Right, so you've had two bureaucrats stumble over eachother to close your request for adminship. One of them is second-rate and couldn't remove the redundant userrights, so go ahead and get some practice with the interface by removing them: Special:Userrights/Rosguill. Congratulations on your successful request for adminship! –xeno^talk 18:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoops! Didn't see this, I ruined the party. Good news: you can add them back then remove them for double the practice. Oh, and congrats! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, xeno thank you! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, user:ThisIsaTest is always looking for new userrights to abuse =). –xeno^talk 18:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, user:ThisIsaTest is one of the worst accounts we have. You better block them while you're at it. They are also very sorry once you do that and should be unblocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Admin congrats

• Congratulations! By the way, I should be more active on NPPS after the holidays, there's been a lot going on. Again, congrats! Puddleglum ^2.0 18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Puddleglum2.0, thank you and no worries, respectively. Happy holidays! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on making it as an administrator! You've reviewed a lot of my articles and redirects that I tend to make in bulk, for which I am very grateful! – DarkGlow (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Great job on succeeding in RfA! James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The perfect holiday gift!

Though little known, there was a fourth wise man who gave baby Jesus a little mop.

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Every new sysop needs a mop with which to begin cleaning up. Luckily, your success lines up nicely with the holiday season; thus I gift you your first mop! Treat it well, and it shall treat you well. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order

Congratulations on the successful passing of your RfA! If you ever have any questions, myself, other admins, and the 'crats are all around to help. Don't hesitate to reach out --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just looked. You might want to update your userpage. Your....umm...userboxes need fixing (alt). Also, feel free to raid my scripts (and their history) - or anyone else's for that matter - for ideas. Plenty of useful admin scripts are around. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Whitelist

I had been holding off on some work on the redirect whitelist once I knew you'd possibly be a sysop (congrats on that btw, you're going to do great, if I can help let me know). I'm happy to let you be the main driver there - though if you ever need me let me know. As such I leave it to you to think about how we set-up archiving. I would generally think that something like 2 weeks would be the right time - if no sysop acts on it in 2 weeks so be it. Alternatively we could just go to a manual removal like what AfC does. Either way I leave it to you - though feel free to ask questions or bounce ideas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks! 2 week-archiving should be fine, although given that we're basically just handing this out to trusted editors (as opposed to having people come request the perm) even manual archiving would likely be fine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 23 December 2019 (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.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your successful RFA. You did it. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congratulations on your RFA, Beers are on me! :), Happy blocking!, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect whitelist

Thanks for alphabetizing it, but `Randy Kryn` should go before `Shortride`. Thanks for everything that you do for new page patrolling. Happy holidays, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, d'oh, fixed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks. Also, for the archive, why not follow the perm method of a permalink to the discussion, rather than a copy of it? DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, how would I go about implementing that? I was just copying the method used at AfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Do you mind if I switch the current archive over, and then you can take a look and see which is preferrable? DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 Go for it. I am totally at a loss now that my tried-and-true "check the source code of the page whose design you like" isn't cutting it here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so, at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist/Old requests, just add a permalink to the user's discussion in the relevant section, and then remove the discussion. This makes it easier to keep all of the archives together (i.e. we can use the same page for the next year+ and it shouldn't be an issue of being too big) and makes it easy to find a discussion (search for user name, click to see discussion). Thoughts? DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, awesome, looks great. Thank you so much! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Salute !!!

Congratulations on your successful RFA. 🎉🎉🎉 Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Congrats on your wildly successful RfA, welcome to the mop corps! Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Great job, Rosguill! You had an excellent showing, and made it through with no controversy. Congratulations! — Newslinger talk 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations on an excellent run for the bit! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations on the successful RfA. Have never seen such a landslide support for any of the previous RfA's from my time here. Csgir (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Damn, I missed it. Many apologies - I'm extremely pleased to see your RfA, you're obviously going to be a great addition to the hardpressed corps. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Just another note of appreciation :) Csgir (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Article title consultation

Happy holidays! I'd like your expert opinion on an article title. (I figured the best person to ask is the New Page Reviewer of the Year.) I'm working on Famous literary feuds. I've one more book to consult (Camus v. Satre) and I'll be done. When I move it to mainspace, should it just be Literary feuds? I don't see many articles that use "famous" or "well-known" or "notorious" or "notable" in the title, so I'm hesitating on keeping the Famous literary feuds title. But on the other hand, I wonder whether just Literary feuds implies a greater scope than the article covers, since I limited it to the incidents that have books and papers written about them and are covered by major media outlets or are generally mentioned whenever one of the participants is written about.

There's no rush, and I realize you've a ton going on right now, but if you get time after the holidays to consider the question, I would really welcome your view on it. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, ideally, you could find secondary source content about the concept of a literary feud in general, add that as the first body section(s), title the article Literary feud and then have all of the existing content subordinated to a "Notable feuds" section. Another solution (which requires an unfortunate amount of busy work) would be to create separate articles for each feud (assuming it meets notability guidelines), and then have them all linked to from a List of notable literary feuds.

If you're looking for a title that works without totally rewriting the article, I think Literary feud is best. That having been said, if you do go this route, you may want to reorganize similar to my first suggestion, and just leave the fleshing out of the section for general coverage of the concept of a literary feud to another editor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Rosguill: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy holidays

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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 cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, want to advise on handling a dicey Eastern Bloc article?

You have commented on the talk page of the original author of my new pet nightmare, Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya, and have what looks like Cyrillic in your profile. Thus I assume you're a scholar of every single cultural and historical issue in post-Soviet satellite states. Maybe you'll have a sense for the veracity of the claims or lack thereof. Thanks, Jasphetamine (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Jasphetamine, that article is quite something. There's so much OR that I'd be tempted to call for WP:TNT. Looking around at related articles Chechen–Russian conflict, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, and Mass graves in Chechnya. Looking at those articles, I don't see any indication of ethnic cleansing against Russians in Chechnya, although there is mention of civilians of undeclared ethnicity fleeing the Russian military advance for other republics of Russia, and the Mass graves article seems to be mostly about excesses perpetrated by the Russian forces, not the Chechen ones. Battle of Grozny (1994–95) mentions significant civilian casualties, but largely due to Russian air raids, not ethnic cleansing. Samashki massacre mentions Russian-perpetrated war crimes. There's some articles about Chechen insurgents bombing civilian targets in Russia or taking hostages, but not ethnic cleansing per-se.

I think that likely the best way to move forward on the Ethnic cleansing article is to aggressively pare back anything that looks like OR: get rid of the long quotes, get rid of SYNTH-y claims, and see what you have left. If you need a spot check on a given source I can take a look on it, although going to RSN may be more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You’re a lifesaver. So as far as paring down, that was my initial reaction and first I started with an approach of “okay I’ll just sort of de-specify who was unsourced forcibly relocated or killed off, as well as remove any unsourced claims of crimes against humanity in general,” then realized that will turn this article into a stub that consisted of “Life wasn’t easy in the general vicinity of Chechnya. Citation needed.”

On the other hand not doing that leaves me with the disquieting idea of this article sitting on the internet under the Wikipedia name waiting to be used in bad faith. You mentioned many of the things that particularly worry me, the mass graves really got my attention, as they’re often invoked by propaganda throughout history.

I personally would like to see this thing delisted/WP:TNT’d until it can be addressed by subject experts, but I don’t have the clout to deal with the potential Wikidrama that could incite.

Jasphetamine (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Jasphetamine, I wouldn't worry too much about drama. I might eat these words later, but in my experience thus far, there aren't too many (any?) well-regarded editors on English Wikipedia who are actively fighting to preserve pro-Russia POV for articles about post-Soviet human rights issues. Meanwhile, as long as you keep your sights on creating a neutral and policy-compliant article (as opposed to setting the goal of "eradicating Russian propaganda" or the like) your changes should be defensible.

You might want to bring this issue to the attention of either the neutrality noticeboard or the fringe theory noticeboard (if you want to notify both, pick one location to start the conversation and then post a notice with a link to that conversation on the other noticeboard). Either way, I'll probably take a crack at improving the article later today. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and the help. I trust your instincts regarding the communities attitudes about preserving anti-Russian propaganda (that’s a chuckle of a sentence right there) but if you pop in on the talk page thread I started and mention you’re hoping to help out it’d be a nice gesture.

Irrational or not, it would assuage my reticence to get involved. I had a bunch of very tenacious editors decide I needed to be SPI’d in a rather informal, aggressive, and public way entirely because I voted in an RfA shortly after registering my account.

I decided then I hate the type of drama that happens around this place and plan to avoid it.

Jasphetamine (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはRosguillたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Nomination of NorthSideBenji for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NorthSideBenji 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/NorthSideBenji 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Magnolia677, not sure why I got this notification, you should make sure to notify the article's initial editor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. The notification was automated. If you don't mind, I'll just ping TwinTurbo, the article's creator. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame

Hi, I just saw that you reviewed the list I created List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame. Thanks for that.

However, it shows that it is a featured list, which it is not supposed to be.

Can you please contact the right people, and tell them to remove the symbol from it? Thanks. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Surge elec, what was the reason behind that bug? I saw it and remember being puzzled by it, but when I checked the talk page it seemed to have the correct (non-featured) label, so I kinda just shrugged and moved on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. The symbol was removed from the page. Surge_Elec (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for reviewing the list I created List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame. Cheers. Surge_Elec (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RFD closures

Hey Rosguill! Just a heads-up: When you close or relist the final listing on a WP:RFD daily subpage, could you please remove the transclusion of that daily subpage from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? (Unfortunately, RfD is probably one of the few ventures where such an action is not taken by a bot ... ironically, a bot creates and transcludes the pages, but doesn't remove the transclusions when they are no longer needed.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Steel1943, Noted, will do. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi rosguill hope you are enjoying holidays , can i request you to review a page its notable and passing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Memon KutianaWala, which page are you asking about? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This page was created by few person in last three years at that time no notable links were found so admin protected it , i asked two wikipedia admin about this issue one told me please wait if draft accepted protection will be remove , second admin fix the page and edit grammar mistakes. i hope you will check and review it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi

Thanks

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Memon KutianaWala, I actually don't do much work at AfC. I would note that it usually takes a few months for an article to be reviewed, and you only submitted it a few days ago. I also see that a few AfC reviewers have already edited it, so people have their eyes on the article. I'm going to decline reviewing this article right now, please be patient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You were right

I was reading your comment, and I was pretty confused at first. After all, I don't review permissions, and I basically was under the assumption that:

"For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). After two weeks, if a request does not have the individual consensus of 3 reviewers the request will be automatically closed."

This was how the process was. Requests would stay up for 2 weeks, even if it consisted purely of oppose votes. Your comment got me thinking, "am I just not interpreting the procedures correctly?" So I went back and re-read, confident in my understanding. Until...

"Alternatively an administrator may close a request as successful or unsuccessful at any time as part of standard individual administrative discretion for the granting of user rights."

Thank you for the information! I figured that my drawn-out revelation wouldn't be appropriate for including in the nomination, but here's this at least. Utopes (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Utopes has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Utopes, we are all continuously learning on this wonderful place called Wikipedia. Honestly, since having gotten admin rights earlier this week Wikipedia has become far more terrifying again because suddenly I have a new toolbox that I barely know how to use. It's like my first month of NPP all over again! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I just didn't fully read the instructions and used my incomplete knowledge to say that you were circumventing the system. If everything is resolved, then we're good. (And you don't always need to be using your admin actions if that was worrying you. You don't need to cut celery with a chainsaw, even if you have it lying in your garage). Utopes (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		Pour l’ensemble de votre travail sur Wikipédia. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated greetings

I took a bit of time off there while visiting relatives over Christmas - so, I'm too late you congratulate you on your RfA, and too late to wish you a merry Christmas... but I'm just in time to wish you a cheerful Hogmanay, and best wishes for the new year! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your Tag: PageTriage in Abigail Varela

Dear Rosguill, thank you for your concerns about "copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" in page Abigail Varela. May I ask -in all candor- why was it that despite observing the need to revise these aspects you did not go ahead to make the changes that you perceived necessary? Was it due to lack of time or to another motive? Your kind feedback on this question will be appreciated.Neuralia (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Neuralia, lack of time primarily: if I come across an article in the new pages queue with copyediting issues that would take more than a few seconds to correct, I'm generally going to tag it and move on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, would you be kind enough to spend the necessary seconds? Your constructive spirit will be appreciated. I found one spelling mistake with the word aluminum, which is taken care of. May I note the article is written in consistent Historical present style that perhaps you are not familiar with?Thank you Neuralia (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Neuralia, Historical present style is not a style that is encouraged in Wikipedia's manual of style. Moreover, the article's tone is quasi-promotional due to its use of rather flowery prose: it would be appropriate for an art catalog, but not so much for Wikipedia. There's also quite a few grammatical errors.

I'm going to respectfully decline making the corrections myself, as I avoid making significant copyediting improvements to articles that have issues with promotional tone because this can allow paid promotional editors to game the review system. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A useful admin's accessory for you!

. Wear it well, Narky Blert (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI

I can't reply to you directly in the ANI discussion because I don't have an account, but I'd like to respond to something you said there. You said, "If this was behavior that was being repeated over and over again despite it having been contested brought to that editors attention, then ANI would be appropriate."

Could you please look at the discussion in Onetwothreeip's user talk over the past four or five months, particularly here, here, here, and here? I'm one of about a dozen users who have been struggling to deal with this pattern of behavior, which seems to have escalated recently. Now that it's finally been brought to a noticeboard, I'd like to make sure it receives the proper attention there. 2600:1004:B16B:F542:458D:473F:2506:D12A (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these additional cases to my attention. While a few of the diffs don't seem directly relevant to this case, the examples of rash article splitting are relevant and deserve further consideration. I'll make further comments at ANI shortly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, although you've only mentioned two of the older cases. I think his split of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War was the most severe case, as it created several hundred reference errors, which was a mistake he'd been warned about less than a day earlier on the same article. (See the article's revision history, as well as this discussion on its talk page.)

Also, should the other editors who were involved in these earlier issues be notified of the ANI discussion? 2600:1004:B16B:F542:458D:473F:2506:D12A (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added mention of the American-led intervention case. I'm honestly not sure what our best practices regarding notifying other editors would be. There is an obligation to notify editors who are being discussed, but that doesn't extend to other editors peripherally involved in the issue. Given the number of editors involved across these discussions, I'm a bit concerned that notifying all of them will turn the discussion into a trainwreck, and thus I'm thinking that we might get a clearer consensus for or against a cban if only more impartial editors weigh in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, this IP editor appears to be the one which has been in some dispute with me on the Race and intelligence article, where they have been attempting to retain sources that make fringe claims about certain races having greater inherent intelligence than others. I think what has now happened is a severe overreaction to situations that arose from article splits which have been resolved relatively easily.

The IP editor for example raises that there were "several hundred reference errors", but this was only because an article used list defined references. I copied the references over into the split article, but many of those references weren't used in the split article. This resulted in errors appearing where references defined in the references section didn't actually appear in the article, and these were removed a fairly short time after the split was made. Of the references that actually did appear in the article, and for what the content actually relied on, there were no errors. It was purely redundant references that were the issue.

I have explained the other two instances, both fairly benign, at the noticeboard. Please feel free to ask me any further questions regarding these splits. The vast majority of splits I've made were completely uncontroversial, and I have always been willing to resolve the issues on talk pages whenever the splits that I have made are contested. I kindly ask that you withdraw your proposal. Many thanks, Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor who opened the complaint at ANI is now WP:CANVASSING other editors, including editors who have nothing to do with articles I have split. This shouldn't be acceptable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, insofar as the editors that SharabSalam has pinged have actually recently been involved in editing disputes where you split an article, it is actually pertinent to the discussion. However, if editor's are canvassed from unrelated, older disputes that you've been involved with, then it crosses the line. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some of the editors are from the latter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, all of them are from the related discussions that the IP linked about the splits. I don't know anyone of them and this is the first time I see them.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Demonstrably untrue. Of the five editors you listed, AndewNguyen is from Race and intelligence, JalenFolf is from Differential K theory, and BullRangifer is from Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. These are not articles I have sought to split, and the issues do not relate to those articles being split. Of the two editors you listed who are from articles that I have sought to split, one of them raised their concerns in September and were resolved in September. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, nope.They are all from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Page_size --SharabSalam (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue. Those editors are only mentioned in that talk page by Corker1, who was copying and pasting those comments on other talk pages that I was participating in, and were never participants on discussion about that article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I've had an editor, Corker1, who has now commented at the ANI post, who was copying and pasting comments to talk pages that I was participating in, denigrating me and trying to mobilise editors against me. Wouldn't this behaviour justify a WP:BOOMERANG? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, at this point these types of concerns should be raised in the ANI discussion, not on my talk page, not the least because at this point closing the discussion or implementing sanctions is not solely in my hands. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor RfD comment

In this RfD close, you mention to RealFakeKim about being bold and making the redirect themselves. Chinazi is fully protected so RfD is quite necessary! Pedantism over... anyways have a nice day :) — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

MarkH21, my bad, I should have checked more carefully. Thanks for the note. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

NPP school

Do you have time to take on a student? I am relatively new to NPP and would appreciate a tour. I feel like I am not doing it in the most effective way or giving it the due diligence it deserves. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I likely can, yes. What kind of instruction were you hoping to receive, a structured lesson plan or just some coaching when you come across difficult or unfamiliar cases? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Structured, if you would please. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, ok, I'll set things up for you sometime later today. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:

• If you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).

• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI

• User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history

• User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)

• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title

• User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles

• User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, one additional question, what areas of NPP in particular do you think you need assistance with? The structured course as a whole includes basic introductions to GNG and other notability guidelines, but we could skip toward more difficult, practical cases if you think you don't need the full introduction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You can skip the basics. Assume I am pretty knowledgeable in our policies and guidelines. I want to work more on CSD criteria, tagging, and cleanup. Share your process, filter settings, as well as what to look for and what to ignore for now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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

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

pt → en help needed

Hi, Rosguill,

Thanks for raising that issue at ENB. I noticed your user boxes, and wondered if you might be interested in lending a hand with some translations from pt-BR. We currently have a need with two draft articles: Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations and Draft:Operation Car Wash investigation phases. The former is about 75% done, and the latter probably about 20%. It "chunkifies" very nicely, and you could do isolated paragraphs without having to worry too much about what's going on in the rest of the article.

There's another possible project you might like: I've been building a glossary of terms as an aide to pt-BR → en translation, to help make translation of (Brazilian) Portuguese articles into English more consistent and accurate, not to mention faster and easier. Any assistance to the glossary could be leveraged across many articles, so that might be a more important project, than just translating the two articles. You can find the glossary here: Draft:OCW-G. I think it has hit critical mass and is close to being ready for release; I expect to place it as a subpage of WP:BRAZIL. If you want to contribute, feel free. If you have any suggestions or comments, please raise them on the Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'll take a look at this later tonight, but I should be able to pitch in some. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Rosguill, thanks for the help at Phase 10 of the OCW phases draft. You hit a tough translation situation with precatório; it took me a while to research and fully understand it, but I do, now. It required a new entry to the glossary, and an explanatory note added to your translation, because there's no way a simple literal translation or a short phrase would suffice. If you hit a translation problem, please add it directly to the body text, as the edit summary eventually gets lost in the scrolling. The {{clarify}} template is a good way to signal a translation issue or uncertainty in-line. Here's an example. If you code this:

On April 8, 2015, the Federal Justice Court of Paraná confiscated 163.5 million reals from Queiroz Galvão's company, a figure corresponding to {{clarify|text=the amount of money that had been borrowed on credit from |reason=Original: "crédito de precatórios da empreiteira crédito de precatórios da empreiteira junto ao estado de Alagoas" |post-text=(See discussion [[User talk:Rosguill#pt → en help needed|here)]] |date=December 2019}} the state of Alagoas.

it will render in-line, like this:

On April 8, 2015, the Federal Justice Court of Paraná confiscated 163.5 million reals from Quieroz Galvão's company, a figure corresponding to the amount of money that had been borrowed on credit from the state of Alagoas.

The |reason= param becomes a mouse-over tooltip (but cannot handle links) and the optional |post-text= param can handle discussion links, if needed.

As it happens, it was not an accurate translation, and I've updated it; although I had no idea if it was or wasn't when I started. After some research, I found out the actual meaning, added it to the glossary, and adjusted the text in Phase 10. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Not enough articles?

Hey Rosguill! I wanted to get back to you about Shreevatsa's declination. While I am not worried about the outcome in either direction, I'm confused about your explanation. My understanding is that whenever a user with autopatrolled creates an article, the "patrolled" value is set to true, when it is set to false for all other users. So to that point, because the user is trustworthy on the basis of their history of article creation, why would it be declined on the logic that "not enough articles created recently". I can't ignore that the article creation has stagnated for the user, but because they returned from their hiatus to create more redirects, there is a possibility that more could be created in the future. That is why I nominated that user for the permission; they were trustworthy in the past, and if they decide to create any more articles, I can say with confidence that they will be well written. Autopatrolled isn't removed from inactive users either, and I'm sure that there are x number of users with the permission who won't author another article again but keep the permission because of the chance that they do return. Anyway, I'm not going to challenge the decision in the WP:PERM threads because you are correct in the fact that this user probably won't create many more articles or redirects here, so there's no harm in NOT granting the right either. Utopes (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Utopes, you're right that there isn't harm in granting the right to a user who doesn't make many new articles. But the goal of the autopatrol permission is to reduce Wikipedia's backlogs. At the rate that they're crating content, the amount of work that it would take me or another admin to review enough of their articles to feel confident in conferring the right would take years to pay off. Time would be better spent reviewing the case of a more prolific editor, or not at PERM and instead in actually reviewing articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mawhiba moved to draftspace

Hi Rosguill, I'd like to know why has Mawhiba article been moved to draft and why do you think that I have a conflict of interest. I have already checked about its neutrality and added the required citations. So, please can you tell me more about this?

I disclose that I have not been paid or encouraged or asked to write an article about Mawhiba.

--Mustafa Al-Elq (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mustafa Al-Elq, the article is formatted like an advert, particularly with the Vision section that looks like it was pulled directly from the organization's website. It's generally encouraged for editors who are new on English Wikipedia to submit articles through the AfC process, especially in areas such as articles about nonprofits and companies where we get a lot of promotional submissions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, can you give me some concrete checklist that I can fix the article through it? Like, what are your instructions to make the article does not seem like an advertisement?--Mustafa Al-Elq (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mustafa Al-Elq:

1. Make sure that the article's sourcing meets WP:ORGCRITE, i.e. coverage of more than a sentence or two from 3+ reliable sources that are independent of the subject
2. Write the article in prose (as opposed to bullet points, which should be used sparingly), focusing on the history of the organization, which can include recent events but should focus on past achievements rather than ongoing programs. Similarly, partnerships with other organizations are rarely worth mentioning unless they are direct subsidiaries of each other or mentioned at great length in reliable sources. Accreditation details are generally not listed, although it may be appropriate to link to an actual accreditation database entry in an external links section at the bottom of the article
3. Any content about the organization's intentions, goals or values which is sourced to the organization itself should be attributed to that organization, and should be edited to be more neutral. Note that even when presented neutrally, such information may not be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tibet House USA

I saw mention of THUS on Teahouse. Out of curiosity I visited the page. I noted your reason for moving the article to draft. I have reviewed the draft and can find nothing in it that violates WP standards. The government of China might not like the article as it is an indirect critique, but the lede and body are factual representations of the mission statement. Is there something else that I missed. ThanksOldperson (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, see my response on that editor's talk page. I felt that there was enough non-neutral phrasing that the article should receive some neutrality copyediting before being accepted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!

Happy New Year!

Rosguill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 22:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

                                                 

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Rosguill,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with Kifli

This article is to be PotD on January 20, and the article is in rough shape. Normally we start from the lead, but the lead is just a list of the names for this item in different languages, and most of those names don't bring up much on a google search. I'm hoping to get some help from people who have mad language skills like yourself to see if we can develop a reasonable paragraph to use for the PotD blurb.

Congrats on passing your RfA, btw! I was watching yours and Newslinger's but was so crazy busy both onwiki and IRL that I didn't have time to do due diligence unless it looked like my !vote would make a difference. :) --valereee (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thanks for the congratulations. Unfortunately, it looks like my language skills may not be too useful here: my main overlap with the subject matter is German, but the deWiki article appears to have already been mined for the Origin section and googling Kipferl didn't turn much up in the way of RS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! I'm using a scattershot approach here, just reaching out to anyone I can think of! :) --valereee (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Whitelist Guideline

Just was looking at your addition to the Redirect guidelines. While what you write is no doubt 100% true for you and you're doing the overwhelming amount of work there I don't think it should be immortalized formally. We don't offer such "in practice" language at AUTOPATROL or other actual PERMS even though these in practice standards exist. One of the reasons being that when multiple sysops work their standards are bound to disagree. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, we currently don't offer any minimum criteria for RWHITELIST other than "good track record creating redirects", so I thought that some more concrete suggestions would be in order. Given your comments, maybe a solution would be to say something like "minimum criteria is generally over 100 redirects created with few-to-none deleted outside of housekeeping processes". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at NPR just because we probably shouldn't just be deciding this between the two of us :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Scottish Independence DRN

Yes. There isn't a dispute if all but one of the participants have been banned or indeffed. We don't need to give a forum to sockpuppets to quarrel. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Educare Georgia

Hello, Rosguill. I saw your advert template in Educare Georgia. I tried to improve the article and changed some things, which I thought were problematic. Can you please review it and tell me, if the article is any better now? What else could be done for further improvement? Thanks in advance!-SHOTHA ^[UT] 08:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

SHOTHA, Thanks for the improvements, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks a lot! ^^-SHOTHA ^[UT] 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BIM_Collaboration_Format

You added the citations needed banner to this article: BIM_Collaboration_Format I think it can be removed now, but as the main author I think someone else should vet this. Please take a look and remove the banner if appropriate. duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DuLithgow, done, thanks for the improvements, although I actually was not the editor who originally added that tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice 2

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Encourage new article creation

Hi, I missed your WT:R suggestion and dumped the consequences in WT:RFD#Encourage new article creation. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Y'know, I actually hadn't realized that we had directly contradictory information on that page. I'll look into whether either of those justifications was inserted without consensus, gather my thoughts, and eventually comment there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I definitely didn't consider what's new with ILLs since Wikidata exists, obviously missing ILLs kill the old keep rationale. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I saw your comment on administrators noticeboard. This user is even removing my dispute tags, here and here, what should I do? Beshogur (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You could try reading the WP:DT link Hunan201p showed you in the history section, or the most recent addition to the talk page at Ashina tribe. Hunan201p (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Hound. Are you talking to yourself? Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. Both of you should take a break and let other editors state their opinions on the article talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Userpage suggestion

In your bio, you say "there's a solid chance you're here because I reviewed a redirect you created and you're not sure why." But then you don't actually say why! I now see it's a normal part of Wikipedia housekeeping, but the NPP page takes a while to get to the point. Might be a good idea (and avoid more questions like this one) if you said a bit more here. ~ CZeke (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CZeke, thanks for the heads up. I used to have an explanation on there from when redirect reviewing was still new and sporadic. I removed the section after some time, but I guess I had never removed the prompt from the beginning of the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello, How are you doing! I checked your contributions to Wikipedia. It is very great job. I wish you success in the future. And I have a suggestion for you. How can I contact with you? Could you give me your email or write to me on gulyora9920@gmail.com Kind regards with many thanks, Gulyora Gulyora9920 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gulyora9920:, you should be able to contact me using an button on the left sidebar of this page that says "email this user". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

White Croatia RfC

Hello, Rosguill. I've resubmitted the Talk:White Croatia#RfC: Disputed additions as you didn't submit for closure. The outcome is self evident, but there a users who need it spelt out for them. Season's greetings! Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, is resubmitting it as an RfC the way to resolve it? I thought the general procedure was to just list it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, please bear with me. That, I believe, is the standard procedure (or it's not contrary to any 'policy' I've ever come across). There was a time that I would have submitted the original in the blink of an eye. I do have 43,538 edits to my name for a little bit more than being a pretty face. I've submitted for people who didn't bother them but, usually, if you're serious enough about an RfC to initiate it the first place, why should it be WP:COMPULSORY for someone else to do it on your behalf. I realise you must be busy, but the just don't bother starting. It's too late to change it now because Rose Red has already added a new RfC ID.

You'll have to forgive me my being so curt, but I'm feeling pissed off. Drag me to an AN/I for a lesson in civility. I've got level 4 mantle cell non-hodgkins lymphoma, permanent, severe xerostomia: no little bit of saliva as my parotoid glands were blown out by the third treatment when my neck literally developed lymph nodes like ball down my neck literally overnight. Our article doesn't explain that most of your taste buds are blown, food loses its taste... if only it just lost its taste. It's more of a reaction. Most foods make me feel nearly sick. Some foods have made me vomit (no I didn't need a Metoclopramide). Burning mouth syndrome isn't helped by pain killers. I hate meal time and have to force-feed myself. Neither is it fun waking up with both the palette of your mouth and your tongue turned into a sponge. You're told to sip on water all day, then end up getting up every half hour to piss so you don't even get time to fall asleep again. I'm not even going to go into the painful details of how I stop myself from drinking more than 2.7 litres a day. Best yet, I was told that the effects would start clearing up after about 2 or 3 weeks. I've had R-Chop, Autologous stem cell transplant, now I'm on R-ICE. None of them are fuzzy-wuzzy little remedies. They're exhausting and painful.

So you'll excuse me if I have chemo brain. Each treatment gave me 6 months of recovery, then a relapse. What do you reckon the odds are on this final 30% survival probability?

Apologies for the rant. It's been building up for so long that I was going to explode. You just happened to be the poor sod who's copping it from me because I put on my happy face, even with doctors and nurses. My oncologist and his side kicks refuse to acknowledge I've said anything when I've confronted them with the facts. They just ignore what I say and leave the room. Now that's honesty in the medical profession. Would you believe it? I've begged them to please speak honestly about it, but they simply won't. Ah, well, such is life, nine kids and no wife (husband/dog/cat/chimpanzee). Cheers for hearing out my bitching, even if you did tune out by the end of the first sentence. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, no worries, you are clearly going through some harrowing shit and it's ok to vent. As far as the RfC issue is concerned, however, I'm a bit confused. When you say that is the standard procedure, are you referring to relisting the RfC or to requesting closure at AN? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting closure at the AN using the previous RfC number. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, in that case, I'm tempted to just revert back to the expired RfC status and file a closure request to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. If you're not opposed I can go ahead and do it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I had a couple of unanticipated days in hospital, so I didn't bring my laptop, and forgot the charger for my iphone. ARRRGGGH! I'll never do that again.

If Rose Red is amenable to having the new RfC removed, go for it! I didn't think there'd be any more interested parties than already participated joining in, but you don't know what kind of meat and veg, socks, singlets, long-johns, trolls, lurkers and people who just like the idea of !voting (even though they don't know a jot about anything), etc. are hanging around. The sooner closed sensibly, the better. What's next on the agenda, are we going to be rewriting the article on Continental drift theory as if it were still being taught as standard geography? We have an overabundance of oddball articles as it stands. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for delaying but process but, as I thought, it's all pretty much wound up thanks to Armbrust closing off on the obvious and making sense of the entire ahistorical a-ethnographic (if it's not a word, call me Shakespeare and ring the world sanctioned English language dictionaries... pronto!)

Incidentally, I'm going to keep on gnoming as carefully as possible, but I'm signing out 'cos I'm really signing out fairly soon (as in terminal), so keep up your hard work. Wiki is a mad, NPOV project, yet it really is worth it because it keeps international intellectual debate in action, and that is empowerment worth passing on and mentoring. I've loved working on it, whether I agree or argue with someone. It was a great insight into how I worked as a paid researcher. Complete turn around in methodology... Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, thank you for the comment. I'd like to express my sincerest gratitude for your contributions to this project, and I am personally glad that I had the chance to collaborate with you here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Just checkin'

Wanted to make sure you are still chugging along with a despite all the new tasks you've taken on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, so far so good, although I'm rapidly realizing that helping out at ANI feels like herding a group of distraught middle schoolers 90% of the time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124

Hi- Last week you blocked Smith0124 for edit warring. Yesterday, he went on a revision rampage that is far beyond what is in the spirit of Wikipedia and in violation of his pledges when he was unblocked. One revision he did, of one of my edits, was reversed with the decree that "The content is not changing." He needs to be spoken to again and possibly blocked. Also, he's been found by checkuser to be a possible sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, Peterjack1. I wanted you to be aware of this. Thanks.108.21.182.146 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't take care of this at the moment. If you suspect sockpuppeting, you should open a case at WP:SPI. You may also want to reach out to 331dot, the admin who unblocked Smith0124. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did both of those things. Here's a link to the sockpuppet investigation that found Smith0124 to be a "possible" sock. I also reached out to 331dot around the same time I reached out to you. All I ask is that you monitor when you are able to. Regardless, thanks again and have a great day. 108.21.182.146 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Manual issue on Browser fingerprint article

Hello,

Thanks for your review on the Browser fingerprint article. I'm here because you add a manual issue to the article. I agree but I have difficulties to know exactly which part are problematics and how we can improve it. Even if I have read WP:NOTMANUAL. Can I ask you to give me some examples or advices ?

Thanks, Ergozat (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ergozat, "can be" phrases that describe a subject's usage, such as Identification can be used for various purposes are much more reminiscent of a guidebook or manual than a Wikipedia article, which should instead use the simple present tense (e.g. identification is used for various purposes), which is what prompted me to place the tag. That having been said, having read through the article again more carefully, I think that it has a wide array of issues with its grammar and tone that need to be addressed, and thus I've swapped the manual tag for a copyediting tag. I've also added an external links tag, as external links should only be included in an external links section at the bottom of the article, and should not be included in article text (see WP:EL for more information). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response and review. I will take all that in account and improve the article accordingly. Ergozat (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfD closure

Hi Rosguill, would you be willing to reconsider this RfD closure? There wasn't much participation, and Anon had a policy-based rationale for keeping (WP:RKEEP#7) so I don't see how there was consensus to delete. I'd prefer it be relisted so additional participants can weigh the pros and cons of Keep7 and Del10 in this case. Best, — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Anon linked me to the discussion above where it seems they withdrew their keep argument, so I can see how you found consensus there. Feel free to ignore this! — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Review Request

Hi, I noticed you recently tagged the article One Part Woman for copy edit issues. I've edited the page to fix what I could, and I was wondering if you could perhaps have a quick run through the page to point out any more work that needs to be done, and/or any particular sections that are not up to par. I hope to someday nominate this article as a GA, so any feedback/general comments would be extremely helpful. Thanks for your time! GinaJay (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

GinaJay, thanks for your edits. While there's a handful of questionable word choices and very minor errors left, I think that the article is currently in a state where the tag is no longer necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for recently reviewing seven of my redirects! I appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Audrey Page

Curious about the deleted page. Is this considered a one time story?Nationalnewsorg (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationalnewsorg "One time story" is not the phrasing I would use, but yes I think that this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Belated...

Felicitations on your RfA Sorry I was away at the time and did not have the opportunity to lend my support. No worries on your block btw. It was solid. Speaking of which, I am reminded that when I passed my (rather bloody) RfA, I had this naive idea that I was going to be the first admin to go through my fist six months w/o blocking anyone. I had no interest in the drama boards or ANI. My plan was to roam around CSD and just do the light cleanup work that needed doing. My ambition didn't even last 24 hrs. While cleaning up at CSD I stumbled on a CSD G10 nom that was a vulgar homophobic screed aimed at some poor non-entity which I promptly deleted. And then I realized I couldn't let the page creator get away with it and I would feel foolish asking another admin to handle it... so, yeah. I remember trying to figure out the block template and then spent like 5 minutes explaining in the box why I was indeffing the bleeping little troll. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, thanks for the congratulations and the reassurance. I didn't think that anyone was likely to object, but figured that dropping an indef on someone with no block history was probably worthy of review. Glad to have had that cleared up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you go along you are going to run into cases of obvious NOTHERE editing and sometimes indeffinite blocks are the only reasonable response. Most of those situations will be self evident and won't require a review. But you will never go wrong asking for a 2nd opinion. You may want to take a quick glance at WP:ZT which I wrote to help with similar type situations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, thanks, I'll give that a read _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong - China relations

Hi Rosguill, I see you have added a redirect to the new page on Hong Kong-China relations translated from a quality article on Zhwiki by Translation Studies MSc student at the University of Edinburgh as part of last semester's course programme. The student feels that as their article covers relations in general rather than just the conflict per se that there should be space for both articles. Having looked over both, I do think there is overlap so perhaps an article merge might be the best way forward? Let me know what you think as I would like, as much as possible, to preserve the translation effort that the student has put in here. Very best regards, Stinglehammer (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Stinglehammer, I think that both merging or having separate articles could be viable solutions. However, if the articles are to be kept separate, then care needs to be taken to make sure that they actually have different scopes and aren't just content forks. From looking at the drafts, I'm left with the impression that perhaps the best way forward would be to merge the articles, and then perform a split that avoids duplicating content (and that is properly wikilinked between the two articles) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

M. G. Manjunatha moved to draftspace

M. G. Manjunatha moved to draftspace https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:M._G._Manjunatha

Thank you Sir. I'll improve the references, as per requirement & submit for review as soon as possible. Thanks for guiding me to improve this article. Mallikarjunasj (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Good, simplified close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Balochi numerals

Hi Rosguill,

Good, simplified approach to your close and your interpretation of consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Balochi numerals. I'm just wondering if you might add to the final portion of your closing rationale statement where you write, "(...) with no prejudice toward editors renominating Hindko and Sindhi for further consideration," or making the suggested change(s) boldly themselves to save further discussion?

For clarity, I'm not looking to make any further changes myself, but I find editors often forget redirects can be redirected to plausible targets boldly, so this would be a small reassurance.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, good call. When I was writing out the closing statement I was primarily thinking of deletion as the desired change, but you're right that Uanfala also suggested the addition of content as an alternative solution. I'll make the suggested change. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, No problem. Yeah, for deletion, re-nomination would likely be best. Sounds good! Otherwise, great close...I contemplated awarding you the Closer's Barnstar, but don't want to overuse it. Doug Mehus T·C 17:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For responding when we needed an uninvolved admin to read an RFC before launching it. I appreciate the thoroughness of your responses, and your willingness to explain your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 22 January 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.— Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hirohiko Kakegawa

Since you're the one who speedied the last creation, and it has a lot of sources, can you please merge its history or something with Draft:Hirohiko Kakegawa which I've edited to show it passes WP:SINGER 2/10? ミラP 19:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I've restored Hirohiko Kakegawa. An actual history merge does not appear to be doable at this time, but you should be able to just add your new contributions to that article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It was that easy? Thank you. ミラP 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I've recently learned that most admin actions are almost too easy to execute. The only hard part is figuring out whether they're appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it was, since I discovered a notability claim that hadn't been brought up before. ミラP 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, oh yeah, this time around it wasn't a difficult case. I was more thinking about blocks, deletions, etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Handling New Pages from Blocked Users

Hi, I needed your advice on handling pages in the NPP where the users are marked Blocked. For example, the oldest page is Certain Expenses case where the creator - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davystole - is Blocked. Does this mean that these articles have to be summarily marked for deletion? The Certain Expenses case article is informative and might pass notability whereas another on the backlog, Ava_Kolker has been created by a sock-puppet, which can mean an undisclosed COI. Kindly help with understanding. Csgir (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Csgir, we can file for G5 if an article is created in violation of a block and no one else has made significant edits. In the case of Certain Expenses case, it looks like the editor was CU-blocked without any further elaboration, which means that that account was a sock of another blocked editor, and that this therefore is a violation of the block, so it can be G5 deleted. Ava Kolker on the other hand is not eligible, as several other editors appear to have contributed.

Also note that this is a can, not a must. If it is trivially obvious that an article's subject is notable and the article is not promotional, consider not filing for G5 (I'll often come across useful redirects created by block-evading editors, and will generally accept them). That having been said, don't waste time evaluating a difficult case if it's G5'able. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted Certain Expenses case. While it honestly looked fine as an article, it was created by a sock of Sarsaparilla, who is a long term abuser that has been WMF-banned. Thus, I don't think we can accept anything from them, even if it looks ok. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you so much for the clarification. Following suit. Csgir (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for Sheila Gunn Reid and Christopher Wilson (reporter)

(talk page stalker) Noticed the above related question from an editor, so am asking here

@Rosguill:

Regarding the above redirects, I put them to RfD, but then speedied them because they were created by the sockpuppet account of User:Charles lindberg, who had already been blocked at the time these redirects were created by the sock, User:VivaSlava. Glades12 de-tagged my CSD tagging, and I'm not normally one to delete everything of a sockpuppet or blocked user, but in this case, these were redirects that never should've been created as articles in the first place. There was no substantive edits to either, beyond a mere citation addition to a previous diff. Nevertheless, my understanding is that since they were created by the sockpuppet account and because they were also created after the master account was blocked in an SPI, we can delete these regardless of any prior editing history.

Can you clarify, and, if so, can I re-tag for CSD so we don't have to wait a week to delete this crud?

Note: I've previously posted this to User talk:DESiegel a couple hours ago, but he's probably busy, in a different timezone, or the like. So if you end up replying first, I will just tell him to disregard the above post.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 17:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, it seems like Glades12's objection here is that Kvng's dePROD conversion to a redirect comprises a significant edit, thus invalidating G5. I'm not sure I would have independently made this call myself, but I can see the logic behind it, and I think it's best to proceed with RfD at this time. In a sense, you could interpret Kvng's edit as essentially deleting the G5-able article and creating a new redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yeah, I agree along the same lines with you. I agree that a de-PROD isn't likely construed as a significant edit. Can you clarify, though, if we can ignore the significant edits part if the article/redirect was created by an already blocked account? It seems like the blocked account was blocked before the sockpuppet account (which created the redirects in question) was found out/confirmed. It seems like a really borderline case of a G5 then. No one would likely object to G5-ing this redirect, but there's not really a strong case for G5, either. Kind of a tough one. RfD is fine...I suspect it will close as delete anyway. Doug Mehus T·C 17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical you're laying out here. I don't think there's any case where we can ignore further significant edits, and created by an already blocked account is the only condition under which G5 applies other than violations of topic-bans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, I'm kind of confused now. User:Charles lindberg was the confirmed operator of multiple sockpuppet accounts. It was confirmed to be a sockpuppet operator and blocked before these two redirects were created by User:VivaSlava, which was later added to the SPI investigation in 2018. So, my thesis is that since the sockpuppeteer was already blocked, G5 can still apply even though the further sockpuppet account hadn't yet been discovered. Does that explanation make more sense? Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation, if you haven't clicked through yet, is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charles lindberg/Archive Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, still not sure we're on the same page, but my response is just that the specifics of the original sockmaster don't matter because Kvng's edit can be construed as a significant contribution by an editor in good standing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, fair enough. So, bottom line, being created by a sockpuppet account or by a sockpuppet account of an editor's account that was blocked before the redirect was created does not nullify the "significant" contribution test. The differing view is whether redirecting is a significant contribution. I tend to regard "significant" contributions as adding more than 50 words to an article, broadly speaking, but perhaps the policy isn't written that way. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to put forth a policy proposal to further clarify what "significant" contributions by good-faith editors are? If so, I'll work on something for this spring, when I have more time. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, Eh, I don't know that it's worth a proposal, my guess is that it would get shot down for being rule creep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, (sigh)...we don't want more rules, but at the same time, are annoyed by purposely vague rules, which only prompt further disagreements and varying interpretations from one case to another. Thanks for your replies, though! Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, FWIW, my reasoning for why that may be undesirable rule creep is that I'm not sure all conversions to redirect are created equal. Consider the following example:

1. User:Sock creates redirect A pointing to article B
2. User:Sock converts redirect A to an article
3. User:Sock gets blocked for being a sock

Now, if a good faith editor were to reinstate the redirect at A to point to B with an edit summary of restoring previous redirect, I think that can be clearly considered to not be significant. But if that editor were to point the redirect to a new, unrelated article C, that's pretty clearly a significant change. There's then a gray area between these cases if the editor points A to another article which is related to B, or where the editor points A back to B but gives an edit summary justifying the change independently of the blocked editor's contributions.

We could try to come up with a very specific set of rules based on the previous example, but I think it's cleaner just to leave it to people's discretion on the spot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay fair enough. I do see your point, and it's similar to why I'm in the "hold on a minute, don't delete all articles created by a sockpuppet if they meet our guidelines" camp. Having the imprecise wording allows the subsequently created redirect to delete by G5 (although, personally, I would prefer to treat that as a new redirect so possibly merits a new discussion and if it's an absolute nonsense redirect, then "patent nonsense" could be used, perhaps?). Nevertheless, I won't worry about it, and appreciate your clarification. Doug Mehus T·C 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I tend to view any change too large to be correctly described as a minor edit as being significant enough to block a G5 revert. But then I don't like G5, and rarely do any G5 deletions. indeed I would prefer to repeal G5 altogether, along with WP:BMB, and revert only harmful edits by sockpuppets, but it is pretty clear that there is not and is not likely to be consensus for that change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"Dy-no-mite!"

I thank you for your continued diligence in teaching me the ins and outs of NPP. A question... what is policy on such a redirect? While I understand the exclamation mark, are the quotation marks necessary? DannyS712 bot III marked it reviewed, but I was thinking a move to Dy-no-mite! might be more appropriate. We already have Dy-no-mite. Courtesy ping UnitedStatesian. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I think moving it to Dy-no-mite! is the way to go. While it's plausible someone may search for this with the quotation marks because it is a quote, Wikipedia's back end automatically removes quotation mark literals from search queries (try searching for "Good Times"). What's more, it seems that the drop down search results can't display titles bracketed by quotation marks, so moving it will both not inconvenience anyone and will render the search term more legible for people looking for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PhanChavez Request at DRN

Can you please take a look at the dispute request at DRN that was filed by PhanChavez about five days ago and do something with it, either open it or close it or something? No one has touched it, and I can't mess with it because I am a party to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification

Hi Rosguill, I just wanted to let you know that I or some other editor edit warred or something on the talk page of Ergo Sum in the congratulations section, and your congrats for deleted. Sorry if it was me! I should be able to make progress at NPPS sometime Monday afternoon. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 04:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, thanks for the heads up, it's not a big deal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Therapy

Hey Rosguill, thank you for your feedback about the sections and coi. I am thinking of creating an origins section to help separate the content as you suggested, but I am still new to this and am learning as I go. In terms of the coi, is there anything more I can do to substantiate neutrality? I have cited several unrelated and reliable sources to support the information. Would more citations help? Is it the wording that suggests a coi? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Hip-Hop Therapist (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Therapist, honestly, placing the COI tag was a knee jerk response based on your username. I gave the article another read and don't see any obvious neutrality or framing issues so I went ahead and removed the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I added a section as well, you were definitely right about it needing to be more organized. Thanks again Hip-Hop Therapist (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Abby Hornacek

I am at a loss to understand why Abby Hornacek does not qualify as being notable enough for WP. She's a Fox News analyst and reporter, and frequently appears on several Fox programs, typically alongside Carley Shimkus. Is being a regular TV news personality on a major cable TV network not enough? — Loadmaster (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Loadmaster, being a news personality is not enough, we need multiple examples of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. As written before I converted the article to a redirect, we had two examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage, and one example of secondary coverage in a source of dubious reliability (Earn the Necklace). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being a good sport. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous copyright issue with 'Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020'

Hi there. I'm hoping you can give me some advice regarding a recent copyright issue.

Recently the Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 page was deleted due to a copyright infringement.

It was supposedly copied from this site. However, the text in question appears to have been based on previous years' Wikipedia entries which predates the text on the blog. See 2018 and 2019 for examples.

Is this a fair deletion? It seems more likely that the Eurovision website copied the text from Wikipedia and forgot to attribute it.

Is there any way of getting this re-evaluated? (I have recently created a new version of the page, based on the 2019 version, with updates and some revisions, so I'm not asking for the old content to be reinstated.) Thank you for any advice you can give! DivingSpicy (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DivingSpicy, the dropped attribution does happen and is probably what happened here. I didn't do a super thorough check when reverting last time due to the lack of justification in an edit summary when the content was reinstated. Generally when this is the case the content is retrievable on request, but it sounds like it isn't needed in this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD help

I have nom'd Jamal Simmons for AfD. My first! Are you available to review my edits? Wanderer0 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wanderer0, Looks good. For future AfDs (and other XfDs), you can set them up more easily using WP:TWINKLE. If you get in the habit of creating lots of AfDs, you may also want to install User:Enterprisey/delsort. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you, I've been meaning to install 'delsort'. So that's how CAPTAIN RAJU (or is it CAPTAIN MEDUSA?) manages to easily add all the additional deletion sorting tags. Will that script add the tags both to the AfD discussion and to the appropriate deletion sorting list? (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, yes, if the script is working properly it will both perform the notification on the relevant list and the notice on the AfD. It's been a while since I set up this script, but I think if you have it installed it will also show up in Twinkle so you can apply listings while opening the AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yeah, Twinkle definitely has that functionality installed now by default, but only when creating an AfD. This will be useful so I can add deletion sorting tags post-AfD (sometimes I forget) and I always feel badly when the Captains, Shellwood, or Northamerica1000 have to come along and additional categories. Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Many thanks. (BTW. My dyslexic and myopic brainpan read WP:TWINKIES. I panicked… briefly… egad!) Wanderer0 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting you to be my mentor

Dear Rosguill, I was asked by Mgasparin to be as my mentor, I requested for AfC and was denied for not meeting minimum edit requirements, I would like to learn more about the things for AfC or AfD, I have been active on fighting vandalism until November of last month, resumed this year in January and started my fighting in vandalism, after few edits I saw an article which I felt should have not been approved for article of creation so I decided to apply for AfC and awaited for review, after a week I saw that my request was denied and check a message left by Mgasparin to my thread created when I requested for AfC, Mgasparin recommended you as one of the 3 mentors and starting from today I am going to resume my editing here on Wikipedia until Summer. Looking forward to hearing from you.Angus1986 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, I'd be happy to help out, but I'd like a bit more info on what exactly you're looking for. I've actually done very little work at AfC, and have spent most of my volunteering at WP:NPP, which is a similar process, albeit one that actually has a bit of a higher barrier to entry. If you'd like to train to be an NPP reviewer, I'd be happy to help (we desperately need more page reviewers!). Alternatively, if you just want some guidance around AfD, I can also do that. I could try to give a few pointers for AfC as well, but you'd probably be better off asking for help from an editor that already works in that area if that's what your heart's set on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, sure I would be happy to work on WP:NPP or anyone which needs a lot more volunteers, AfC was just to decrease the load of the existing reviewers for AfC, but if there are other parts of Wikipedia which need help I am more than happy to volunteer either it be AfC, AfD, WP:NPP, etc. hook me up with the one you are the best and able to mentor. Looking forward to working with you. Angus1986 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, ok, I'll set things up for you in a bit. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:

• f you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).
• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI

• User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history

• User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)

• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title

• User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles

• User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, your course page and the first few questions are set up here User:Rosguill/Angus1986 NPPSCHOOL. If you ever feel confused or need help, don't be afraid to ask. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, I would like to start with the school next week, I am not feeling well. Thank you for understanding. Angus1986 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, I am feeling better now and I am continuing it from today. :) Angus1986 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, great! Just in general, feel free to take the course at your own pace, no need to feel bad if you need to step back for a bit here and there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names. Italawar (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, I need your help. My edit here in history of India has been reverted for the fact that that article is “high-level”. But, my thought is, I am trying to improve a section of a high level article. It was nothing but good information I used from Indian National Congress article. Indian National Congress as you may know, is the most premiere organization of the Indian independence, however, it only got a footnote, so I added much needed material. Can you double-check for mistakes and put it back, if possible?

As mentioned, if you can double check and reinstate the section on the Indian National Congress. (2600:1001:B02F:47EE:DA:33FC:4E22:F244 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

The issue here is that History of India is an overview of all of India's history, and intentionally eschews detail in favor of more summary-style descriptions, combined with links to more specific articles. It seems like the content you're trying to add would be a good fit at Indian independence movement. If you really want to try to get your changes added to the History of India article, you should start a discussion on the talk page and try to gain a consensus for the addition (and it seems from the revert that other editors are willing to hear you out if you go through this process). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems like what you and Kautilya3 stated is correct. I should do more research in the next few months before taking it up in talk and be prepared. (2600:1001:B02F:47EE:DA:33FC:4E22:F244 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

References

GA nomination of "Roman people"

Hello! I saw you nominated the article Roman people, which I wrote entirely myself, for GA and while I'm pretty happy with how the article is right now (I feel it gets the core stuff across) and the goal, as with most articles, is eventually reaching GA-type quality, I don't think it's quite done yet.

I think the post-476 AD part of the article ("Later history in Western Europe", "Later history in the Eastern Mediterranean" and "As a modern identity") is as done as it'll ever be but the parts about Romans in the Republic and Empire and what being Roman actually means could use more work (they are significantly shorter than the "later history" part even though these periods are what most people today associate "Roman" with and some terms, such as provinciales and peregrini could be explored in more detail). Significantly, the article states that being Roman was to share in Rome's morals, values and ideas, but it doesn't go into detail as to what these morals, values and ideas were.

I'm mostly familiar with the post-476 history, which otherwise often sadly goes unexplored (and I wanted to bring it to light a bit more than usual), which is why the earlier history is a bit brushed over. I was just caught a bit off-guard with the nomination and wanted to clue you in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, thanks for letting me know. Feel free to remove the nomination if you think that the article isn't ready yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed it. I have no idea how much more work is needed on it (as I said, ancient Roman identity isn't something I researched a lot; just enough so that those sections would be moderately expansive) but hopefully that's something that could be added by someone knowledgeable in that area in the future. Still honored that it was nominated by someoene for GA so quickly! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship Amendment Act protests DRN

My problem with that request was that I couldn't figure out who the IP was. They said they'd discussed on the talk page, but certainly not with that IP address. I even asked on the talk page. No explanation forthcoming but another IP added a wall of text. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I didn't even get that far, Dey subrata failing to show up was enough for me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I just found it really weird. Doug Weller talk 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FORRED RfD close

@Rosguill:

While any experienced, uninvolved editor could've closed Wikipedia:FORRED, I was hoping it would be either you (or BDD) for the consideration you give in your determination of the consensus of the discussion, and the level and type(s) of consensus. So, Thank you for the great close. :-)

This seems to be one of those cases, it seems to me, where the shortcut was given little consideration when it was created because even Steel1943 noted that it stands for "FOR REDirect," which in and of itself implies a certain ambiguity. As Tavix and others, including myself, noted, WP:FORRED is a shortcut to an essay on the rationale for "keeping" redirects from foreign languages yet because "redirect" is abbreviated as "RED," it also implies it's a shortcut for RfD deletion criterion #10 for REDlinks. Interestingly, and perhaps paradoxically, keeping the redirects actually keeps the redirect links as bluelinks.

Nevertheless, as Tavix and others noted, deleting this long-used, albeit poorly thought out, redirect poses challenges in terms of the discussion archives, so it's best to keep it—warts and all. Anyway, there was a discussion between Narky Blert, Hog Farm, Shhhhnotsoloud, and myself, or four of the six participants, were all in agreement to both refrain from using WP:FORRED as the shortcut for foreign language redirects and instead use WP:RFFL or WP:RFOREIGN going forward and to removing it from the shortcut menu at the Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages essay, I was wondering if you would consider that sufficient consensus to removing it from that essay? Tavix did not explicitly endorse removing it from the essay, but wasn't opposed to it, either. Moreover, he has long since not endorsed that redirect as a redirect to the essay on foreign language redirects, so I suspect he wouldn't mind if it were removed. WP:FORRED can still be used, going forward, but by removing it from the essay, we would be saying, "preferably, use either of these two great shortcuts to reference this essay."

What do you think?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 00:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, honestly I overlooked that detail of the discussion. I'll go ahead an implement it now _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, No problem at all. Thanks for your prompt response! I think that will be a great outcome that satisfices everyone. Doug Mehus T·C 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WWPI-LD

This is a new station; it should have at least some notability (FCC filings, press releases, etc.). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, FCC filings and press releases are not examples of secondary coverage and thus don't count toward notability. Moreover, if just being a new station was enough to meet notability guidelines, then every station would be notable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My permissions

So I already have 500 edits to the main space. I would really like to work with someone to help me with patrols. And it seems like you are not working with anyone right now, so would it interest you in maybe helping me? So once I understand patrolling, and come back in a month, I should have more of a chance to have my rights changed? MacySinrich ^talk 01:15 4 February 2020 (UTC)

MacySinrich, I actually have three students right now, but one of them is about to graduate so I should still be able to help you. I'll set a page up for you in a bit. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:

• If you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).

• Wikipedia:Script Installer, which makes installing the rest of these scripts way easier

• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI

• User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history

• User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)

• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title

• User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles

• User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

MacySinrich, I've started a course page for you here. Feel free to take things at your own pace, and don't be afraid to ask questions if there's something you're not sure you understand. Wikipedia is large and complicated, and new page reviewing requires an essentially admin-level knowledge of policies relating to content creation and deletion. My general teaching philosophy is to let people keep trying until they get it right, so don't be discouraged if you don't pick stuff up right away. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Boleskine House Foundation

Hi Rosguill. I wanted to let you know about my concern with moving an article, Boleskine House Foundation into draft space because of a supposed conflict of interest. I can see the point of moving articles that are undersourced there, or moving articles that have no chance of surviving AfD in their current state. But this one has half a dozen newspaper sources, and is easily notable. Of course, every article should mainly be based on secondary sources, but I feel that the best way to fix that sort of defect is to expose it more editors' eyes, and unfortunately, moving into draft space does exactly the opposite. If there is indeed a CoI, then the original author, by definition, is the least able to edit the article neutrally, but one of the consequences of draft space is that it puts the onus back onto that original author to fix it. Not the most productive means of achieving the goal, if you don't mind me saying so.

Anyway, the draft has been republished and a couple of other editors have done some minor cleanup. It still needs the balance shifting toward more secondary sources and eventually it probably ought to be an article about the house, not the foundation, but that can't happen until it's rebuilt (if it ever is). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, the instructions at WP:DRAFTIFY say pretty clearly that COI is a valid reason to move to draft, and as an inexperienced editor, the initial editor should have been encouraged to submit articles through AfC to begin with. Moreover, when I came across that draft in the new pages feed, it had 10 citations to the subject for every single citation to a reputable newspaper. I think that this is actually an example of draftify working perfectly: the initial editor noted their COI, made improvements, asked for help which led to further improvements, and had an acceptable draft moved back to mainspace. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The instructions at DRAFTIFY are merely suggestions; they don't have have the consensus of WP:PAG. It's obvious that the idea of moving to draft because of a suspicion of CoI is insufficient (even DRAFTIFY states "when the author clearly has a conflict of interest". Do you disagree with the proposition that moving to draft space reduces the number of editors who are likely to see it? I should also note that DRAFTIFY has an expectation that the mover "should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors."

I'm afraid that it's an example of draftification working badly: an insufficient reason, moved without tagging for Wikiprojects; and only rescued because the author happened to know an experienced editor who edited it, published it and marked up the relevant Wikiprojects, which only then attracted other editors. Most of the improvements were made quite quickly after the article was returned to mainspace – a telling comment on the draftification process. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I'll concede that I should have tagged the page with project banners, that was a mistake. I nevertheless feel that it's unreasonable to expect new page reviewers to wade through nearly 100 references when the overwhelming majority of them are flatly unacceptable as sources. Some burden of demonstrating notability does need to fall on the article creator, both for the sake of new page reviewers and for the sake of all of the other articles whose reviews are delayed due to cleaning up messes like this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I most certainly agree that the work of NPP is arduous and of the greatest importance to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there aren't enough new page patrollers and that puts time pressure on those who volunteer for the thankless job. It took me a few minutes to spot the half-dozen independent secondary sources amongst the 93 citations in the version you moved, so you have my sympathy. Nevertheless, the core purpose of AfC is "to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted." Logically, it follows that there's no point in moving an article into draft space if it meets WP:GNG. Personally, I'd have slapped a {{Refimprove}} tag on the article, and marked up the talk page for WikiProject Scotland, along with a quick note on concerns about too many primary sources, but I can see that would be a disproportionate amount of time to spend on one article (which is why I was always so inefficient at NPP). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for the sympathy. IMO, the benefit of using a procedure like the one described at WP:DRAFTIFY is that it is a weeder for editors who are not here in good faith. An editor who wants to improve the encyclopedia will have plenty of recourse following a draftify, even if they don't personally know an experienced editor, they can contact the editor that performed the drafting, and they can seek help at the teahouse, or failing that, they can follow the instructions resubmit through AfC––if it's still declined at that point, they will receive further guidance on how to improve the draft. We put the burden of proof on contributing editors when they want to add information to an existing article, and I think it's appropriate to treat article creation in a similar manner. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I agree with those sentiments on AfC...I'd also say that even if something may not be notable, please don't (and this isn't directed at you; it's speaking to patrollers generally) immediately nominate it for deletion at MfD (after draftifying). In most cases, if not substantially all, I'm of the view it's best to let it sit in Draft: namespace, with the AfC tag at the top of the draft and wait out the G13 countdown clock. Even copyright violations, I'm reluctant to speedily delete those when we can apply {{copyvio}} and let the copyright violation volunteers suppress the earlier diffs and remove the offending content. (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to do some needed clerking at MfD?

@Rosguill:

Hope you're doing well...I know you typically spend a lot of your Wikipedia time with the New Pages Patrol (I may join the NPP this spring as I think I have sufficient knowledge with respect to most of our key policies, especially the important ones of notability, verifiability, and neutrality) and RfD, but there is a significant backlog of old business at MfD in needing of some clerking. Some can be closed by experienced editors (doesn't have to be an administrator); just needs someone that's non-involved. The problem is, most of the MfD regulars are involved in them. I've tried requesting closure on the third oldest business at the applicable noticeboard, to no avail. I'm contemplating doing an involved closure of that one as "resolved amicably between the MfD participants and the subject of the MfD" and then actioning the recommended actions as there is no real policy-based reason for deletion, but am concerned that the nom may decide to appeal it to DRV on WP:INVOLVED grounds. Do you think such an involved closure could survive DRV, or would you mind taking a look at that one?

I just see no reason for that editor's userpage to continue have to have an MfD nomination tag on his primary userpage any longer.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 18:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'll take a look in an hour or two when I get the chance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you. No rush. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Noctivagus

Hi, @Rosguill:, I will not dispute anything, if you change your opinion do yourself a new article. It´s not a problem for me but i will not dispende my time doing another article for free. . Cheers! ,--Grazina12 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Grazina12, I'm sorry you feel that way, but your opportunity to comment was while the AfD was still open. At this point, WP:DRV is the way to get the article reinstated. Adding your comments to a closed AfD actually only makes your case look worse, because it makes it seem as if your arguments were considered and ignored in the original closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was working and it never crossed my mind that my article could be questioned. all gothic rock lovers knows Noctivagus.--Grazina12 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Grazina12, well, if you can find enough sources to meet WP:GNG then you will have no trouble getting the article restored (I'd actually be willing to do it myself). But I and a few other editors really did try to search for sources, including reading through every other language wikipedia's article, and came up far short of meeting that standard. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble

@Rosguill:

I took the liberty of closing the two redirects at the above-captioned RfD as "retarget" and "keep" since there were no objections and there is consensus there to deleting the remaining ones, in case you wanted to action the rest as I see you're non-involved in that discussion.

I have checked off which ones are "done."

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, hm, in my UI it doesn't seem that the full 7 days have passed yet so I'm going to hold off for now. I'm also not sure that I agree that there's a clear consensus for keeping White marble. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Hrm, that's weird, it should be 7 days at 2 pm Pacific time because it was listed at 2 pm Pacific time on January 30, 2020. As for White marble, I noticed that, too, but it is explicitly mentioned in the target article, so there's a basis for keeping. I noted the nom even acknowledged more than one potential redirects may not need to be deleted. You can always change the White marble one if you want, or just wait until it shows 7 full days for you. Doug Mehus T·C 00:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Customs and Immigration" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Customs and Immigration. Since you had some involvement with the Customs and Immigration redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Prisencolin (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Customs and Immigration

• Customs and Immigration → International airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No action recommended, just looking for feedback about the redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Big Fun Crafty Show vandalism

@Rosguill:

I still had the above redirect on my watchlist from when I closed it, and was surprised to see you marking it was 'reviewed' again in the page curation log. At first, I actually wondered if this was a new redirect for a variant spelling, but it was the same one. It seems like it's had a lot of single-purpose account vandalism by multiple accounts, and blocking doesn't seem to be doing anything. I'd request long-term semi-protection at WP:RFPP, but they tend to be a conservative bunch there. So then I recalled SilkTork indefinitely semi-protecting the Looby Loo redirect when it was up for discussion at RfD.

I'm not necessarily a fan of indefinite protection, but I'm wondering if a long-term semi-protection (call it 9-12 months) would be helpful here? Since you were the most recent admin to review the redirect, I thought I'd reach out to you.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 13:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I opted for three months of semi-protection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, That sounds good. Hopefully that will direct their attention elsewhere. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

And by elsewhere, I mean away from Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 17:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Gavaccino

@Rosguill:

Thanks for the ping in your close; it was clear, despite my good-faith, solid, and, as you say, "spirited" arguments, it wasn't going to go in favour of retargeting. Nevertheless, when browsing Special:WhatLinksHere/Gavaccino, I noticed there was a piped link at coffee roasting. So that tells me, there might be something we missed here. Are you able to look in the previous revisions, and see if there's anything in there (i.e., as a former article) that would give us some context into why coffee roasting linked to gavaccino?

If so, I don't think it's necessary to change your close, since consensus can change at any time, including immediately, but I'm wondering if it might be useful to WP:REFUND and retarget it to an article that would have similar content coffee roasting is referring?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, from reading Coffee roasting, I can't piece together what exactly they were trying to get at. My money would be that the piped link itself was some sort of a typo or misnomer. The absence of mentions on the internet leaves us with a bit of a dead end, but of course if we ever find something conclusive it can be easily refunded.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble, specifically White marble

...Since you are the discussion closer of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble, can you explain why White marble was "kept"? Asking since from looking at that discussion, the most plausible closes for that redirect would have been "no consensus" or "delete". In other words, I'm trying to figure out how much consideration was given to my response to the discussion's sole "keep" comment for White marble. Also, per this diff on White marble ... were you even the one who "made" the decision regarding White marble? Asking since I've been seeing a rather problematic patten with the editor referenced in the aforementioned diff and their capabilities of assessing consensus in discussions overall... Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Comment Since it was me that marked the white marble redirect as "keep," to try and be proactive and simplify the close, I took the fact that your nomination statement mentioned that "some" can be kept to mean that you were not opposed to keeping more than one redirect. It can be deleted, but I do think it's a useful redirect, so since consensus can change at any time, I would probably recreate that redirect. Since we're not a bureaucracy, it seemed reasonable to "keep" that one even if there wasn't a specific consensus to keep it; likewise, there was no explicit consensus to delete it either. Doug Mehus T·C 22:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dmehus: "...but I do think it's a useful redirect..." So, what you are saying is that you violated WP:SUPERVOTE. Well, I'll have to wait for Rosguill's response on this before I consider taking this to WP:DRV since they were the one who closed the discussion as a whole. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) @Dmehus: Also, if a discussion for a page is closed to "keep", it can take a considerable amount of tome before new discussions regarding that page aren't by default closed to "speedy keep" stating that the new discussion happened too soon after the previous one. So no, WP:CCC does not help overcome what someone would consider an improper close for an WP:XFD discussion; that has to be done either by the closer changing their close, or the discussion going to WP:DRV if the closer chooses not to change their close after being engaged/requested to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  As I say, Rosguill may have an added rationale; I was just trying to be helpful in assisting; it wasn't a determination of consensus. In hindsight, it probably would've been better for me to leave that one alone. Nevertheless, deletion and recreation may be the best option here. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, I didn't make the decision to keep White marble, and the XfD closer plugin didn't even give me the option of changing that decision. Of course, I could have overridden it manually, and I agree with your assessment that it should have been delete or no consensus, but at the time I had been under the impression that since no one had challenged that partial close, people were in agreement with that decision.

At this point, I think that no consensus is the most fair assessment (especially if we were to assess Doug's supervote as a normal vote), and will change the close accordingly. Dmehus, I think you were acting in good faith, but I don't think that it helped. Even if we set aside the issue that it wasn't an accurate reading of the consensus, having a partial closure conducted by another editor generally doesn't make closing the discussion any easier even when it's reflecting a true consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Fair enough. The reason why I tried to help in that way was your reference in another RfD to having redirects batched into smaller, separate discussions, so non-admins can assist with the closures. I took this as a bold assist to try and help out where some could clearly be closed other than delete. Looking back, I erred on white marble, so should've left that alone. In future, I will ask before assisting with any closures so as to ensure that the deleting administrator ultimately views consensus in the same way for all the redirects when multiple outcomes within the RfD are possible. Doug Mehus T·C 23:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, IMO the helpful part about batching is pre-emptive, in that it makes the discussion more orderly by reducing the number of different sub-discussions in the same section. If the discussion has already been had, a partial close doesn't make it much easier. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, fair enough. I re-read the arguments again, and yes, "no consensus" for white marble since J947 rationalized deletion of all except that one. It was a pretty emphatic argument. Fram only expressed a desire toward retargeting one of the redirects and no opinion on the others. Narky's !vote was to "delete," but not clear on whether all or some. As well, Steel1943 made solid arguments in favour of keeping and deleting white marble. Thus, the only !vote was "delete" it was Narky's, and that's only if we assume that Narky meant "delete all." So, a no consensus on that one is absolutely correct. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting that all out Rosguill. I figured that wasn't you, but I wasn't sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• And since asked, to clarify the quotation, what I was saying was, it can be deleted but that its usefulness, explicit mention, and WP:CCC are reasons why it can be easily re-created. I wasn't saying that that was the reason why it was kept. Doug Mehus T·C 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Note, too, that I have seen similar rationales used in other XfDs (notably MfD and AfD) if an editor or two have asked for draftification or userification despite consensus being to delete, the closing administrator will close as draftify or userify since we're not a bureaucracy and making the requestor go to WP:REFUND would be such. Hope that clarifies. But I'm not opposed to deleting, either, so long as it can be recreated (XfDs are non-precedent setting afterall), but Rosguill may have a similar, or different, rationale for why it was kept. Doug Mehus T·C 23:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Nilüfer Yanya birth year

Sorry, I did not notice your revert of the specific birthday. I think I have patched it up and there are 3 sources now. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, no worries, I wasn't vigilant enough in that revert to begin with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DRN

Hi Rosguill, could you please explain your decision at DRN? I've got to say that I am deeply disappointed how this was handled. – Ocolon (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ocolon I see your post on the talk page with actual sources and will reverse my closure accordingly. I am skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation, but concede that I misappraised the discussion at the outset due to the insistent chorus that you had not provided any sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Halo 7

At RfD, when there is no consensus between a retarget and delete, and no one supports the status quo, it's not helpful to close it with no action because then it's closed in favor of no one. I get that you left it open for someone else to tie together the loose ends, so I've done so. That being said, as someone who was strongly advocating for retargeting, it feels too "involved" of me to be the one to make the change, which is why I think the closer should be the one doing it. I think the confusion might have been where you stated "two different redirect proposals", but really there was one proposal, with different targets for Halo 7 and Halo 8: March of the Pigs and Downward Spiral, respectfully. On a more general note, even when I'm closing against two different retarget proposals, I'll usually pick one of them and explain why I felt that one is stronger, or even leave a !vote myself to make it easier for the next closer who comes around. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)