Open main menu


Contents

Removal of 2019 IPSC Rifle World ShootEdit

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)Edit

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

Kids See GhostsEdit

Do you think you could review this article for me, as you've been involved in a review with the user who I was having discussions with related to albums recently (that's where I discovered you from) and even though the album's been nominated very recently, I'd like to make Kanye West studio albums a good topic. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I assume you mean a GA review? I'm a bit busy this weekend but I'll let you know if I can get around to it. signed, Rosguill talk 16:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah sorry I wasn't that specific man, do you think you could do it sometime next week possibly? Cheers. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As we have recently passed the weekend and I'm guessing you forgot to reply, do you think you could maybe do it this week? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, we'll see, I've been fairly busy IRL and the other GA that I've been conducting still hasn't finished. I'm sorry, but I can't make any promises about when I'll be able to get to this. signed, Rosguill talk 08:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, just remember that I'll be able to get back to you if you review it. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Reviewer BarnstarEdit

  The Reviewer Barnstar
Thank you for the thorough GA review of Hotelito Desconocido! MX () 20:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


Enterprise client-server backup {{copy edit}}Edit

This article was the back 2.2 screen pages of the "Backup" article since the fall of 2017, where it was the subject of extensive editing by User:JohnInDC. Since its separation it has been copy-edited by User:Ananya60vc, who made some legitimate fixes even though his/her native language is evidently not English. I therefore propose to remove the {{copy edit}} tag, unless you object. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham No objection. signed, Rosguill talk 02:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Martin (priest, born 1960)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Martin (priest, born 1960). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

Hi Rosguill, Thank you for the page review, much appreciated.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article Breaking MysteriousEdit

I've responded to your proposed deletion on the article's Talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breaking_Mysterious and have added additional citations showing how widely the series has been broadcast around the world. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in GermanyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia libraryEdit

Hello Rosguill, hope you are doing well. I mostly work with free content online (not having an e-commerce account or a library nearby). Every now and then, I come across documents that I find absolutely essential but behind paywalls. I somehow got to a page where you can signup for free access from here. I tried to request JSTOR but it said it required my personal information to grant access. Not knowing what that implies and how much wikipedia knows about me, I went no further. So, I was wondering where I could get information on what exactly JSTOR or other resources will require me to disclose. Living in a country not famous for freedom of speech, I am cautious about divulging information that could link back my Wikipedia contributions to my real identity (assuming I haven't already, I am not sure how much info my email provider gave to Wikipedia). I haven't edited anything that controversial yet, but I might need to in the future.

Alternatively, could I ask fellow wikipedians/somewhere for some specific documents I need to access for my work here, and could they lend me the document; or tell me if the source supports the text I want to use it to support (I understand this would be crazy bad editing practice, but we have to work with what we got, sometimes search engine summary of a paper gives enough hint as to its suitability as a reference to a particular claim)? Etcetera. Thanks! Usedtobecool   06:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I got JSTOR access long enough ago that I don't remember what it asked (I do remember that it asked for my first and last name, I forget if there were other details). That having been said, it sounds like you're looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request signed, Rosguill talk 07:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Thanks for all your work patrolling redirects.

SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting my pagesEdit

Multiple articles I made which had taken me over 8 hours, you completely deleted and redirected them. What is wrong with you? RidingStuff (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

RidingStuff, I can't say I know which articles you're talking about, could you provide links? I review several hundred redirects a day, so there's a solid chance that someone else converted your article to a redirect and I marked the redirect as reviewed (which simply means that the redirect is appropriate, it's not a comment on whether the page should be a redirect or an article).
That having been said, it's very easy to restore an article. If you disagree with a conversion to redirect, feel free to revert the edit from the page history and state why in the edit summary. However, if another editor continues to disagree at this point, there should be a discussion either on the talk page or in an AfD discussion. Also, bear in mind that articles are not yours, even if you worked very hard on them. signed, Rosguill talk 05:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidentsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about newly created pageEdit

Do split pages usually inherit the editing restrictions of the page they're split from? (I'm referring to the new Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard.) Given the history on this page they probably should. Is this a question for WP:AN? Thanks for any insight you have on this. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, my gut reaction is "yes", but I'm not an expert on this matter and haven't attempted to consult any policy pages. It seems like the common sense thing. An administrator would be more qualified to respond (and AN would be a good place to ask this question), although you could probably go ahead and boldly place the arbitration warnings on the talk page with the justification that it's a subtopic of a subject for which arbitration is in place. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! I may just wait and see if it becomes a problem first. No sense being too obsessed with the rulez. :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

AnqaEdit

Copyright violationEdit

I was told to edit a new page that I created and remove copyright violations, I've done that and I would love you to take a look at the page and review and patrol it. Thanks.

The page is located at Patrick Chuka.

Nnadigoodluck (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck, sorry, I generally only do new page reviews on request for particularly easy cases–as I'm not particularly familiar with the sources currently cited at Patrick Chuka, that is not the case here. Currently the backlog for new page reviews is about 90 days long, so please be patient.
On a related note, while it's good that you edited the article to remove copyright violations, you should not have removed the rev-del template, as that is necessary for purging the article's history of copyright-violating content. Please reinstate a template and let an admin take care of this issue. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: Copyright violationEdit

Thanks a lot for your fast response, I've added the template back. How do I get an Admin to take a look at the issue?

I'd await your response! Nnadigoodluck (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck, having the template on the article automatically adds it to a backlog that admins will go through periodically. There's nothing more that you need to do at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thanks a lot

Nnadigoodluck (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

NickCentral (company) pageEdit

Hello. The information on the "NickCentral (company)" page is from the publication / magazine itself, which is why I cannot put the references, and only the online store is private, the magazine is public, and I even have a few copies in digital, but I cannot put them to reference. So if you could, I would like you to not delete the page. And excuse my grammar, im not a english speaker, but i like to improve the wikipedia with new information. Have a great night/day AlbForLife4 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

AlbForLife4, it is required that articles on Wikipedia have citations to independent reliable sources. If such sources are not available for NickCentral, we should not have an article about it. I would suggest reading WP:YFA for information about how to go about writing articles about new topics on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 22:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I added more references on the page... AlbForLife4 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

AlbForLife4, at this point, you should raise any opposition to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NickCentral (company) so that others can see it. That having been said, the "references" you've added demonstrate that you need to familiarize yourself more with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would suggest reading through WP:YFA and WP:V for introductions to writing articles and citing sources. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The references that I added to the page are the only "public" links, the other information I took them from the site itself, and others are from .pdf files which were also downloaded from the site (because the site is a store). Pls excuse my HORRIBLE grammar...im not a english speaker and and I hurry. Bye AlbForLife4 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

AlbForLife4 I understand that these are the only public links. The lack of more publicly available information is the reason why the article was nominated for deletion. If your English skills are not good enough to read and understand English Wikipedia's policies, you should stick to contributing to Wikipedias in languages that you can speak well (or make non-written contributions, like finding photos for articles). That having been said, is there another language that you speak better? I may be able to talk to you in that language to clarify anything you don't understand. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand English quite well, but I don't speak it very well ... and as I said, most of the information on the page is from private sources, and I think they are not taken into account, no? AlbForLife4 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The private sources are of no use to us on Wikipedia, as they are not independent of the subject and not verifiable. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

good night!Edit

I saw that you were translating the article Antifascist Single Front of Brazil, could you translate this article too? att 2804:14C:5BB5:8B2F:8176:8BCB:49C9:4C4E (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That looks interesting, I'll add it to my todo list but I can't guarantee I'll get around to it any time soon. You may want to check out the alternative ways to request translations over at WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. Um conselho pequeno, em inglês "good night!" só se diz como uma despedida, não e uma saudação signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mike CernovichEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mike Cernovich. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting closureEdit

Could you close this discussion. Its been ten days. Thank you. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII, I don't think you need a formal closure; it's been over a week and the consensus is unanimous, so just go ahead and implement a change (and leave an edit summary pointing at the discussion). signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
K, I just didn't want it to be bothered after I do the changes. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TennisEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

AutopatrollEdit

Hello! Thanks for the suggestion. I probably will not pursue that because just because I like to edit content in passing. Those redirects were just an outlier, and I probably won't be doing that too much for a while. Red Director (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wat Bot City F.C. playing in Thai League 4 not Thailand Amateur LeagueEdit

Wat Bot City F.C. is competing in Thai League 4 Northern region. You can find additional data from Thai League's official website [1]. It is not amateur teams. Thai League 4 is a professional league system. 2019 season featured since 9 February to 1 September, 27 matches for Northern region. So that, these teams must not redirect to Thailand Amateur League. I think sources from Thai league official website in the club's history are credible because it is a website of Football Association of Thailand. Thai League 4 is a division that higher than Thailand Amateur League. From 60 teams, there are only 12 teams qualified to champions league stage, Wat Bot City is one of 12 teams. I add 2 sources to club's history about establish of Wat Bot City and introduce of 12 teams in T4 champions league. All of teams that competing in Thai League 4 have the wiki articles but only Wat Bot City has redirected to the lower tournament. Gunkiet (talk) 4:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Gunkiet, Noted. I think I'll let another reviewer take a look at the page. signed, Rosguill talk 06:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DuodecimalEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duodecimal. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Raimo O. ToivonenEdit

Rosguill, I hope that you check page "Draft: Raimo O. Toivonen". R.o.t (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

R.o.t, I'm sorry, I generally don't do Articles for Creation reviews, I just review articles that have either been submitted straight to mainspace or which have already been approved through AfC. That having been said, from looking at the article briefly, it still has significant issues and I doubt it will be accepted as currently written. It doesn't appear to have sufficient citations to coverage in independent sources to meet notability guidelines, and the article is formatted like a resume, as opposed to a prose overview of the subject's life and career. signed, Rosguill talk 13:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in AsiaEdit

Verdi and the SPIEdit

[2] ? Ping me or email me if you have any comment please. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, between their edits to Verdis and the not-cryptic-enough single sentence on their user page, I think it may be justified to file a case at the the relevant sock case. Is there a reason you've held off? signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Time and wanted a response from someone, eg you. This is really my me time, dinner and tv with wife. If you could file that would be great, if you can't I will tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll do it if I have a spare moment today. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I keep noticing your name pop up, marking my new redirects as reviewed. I want you to know that there are those who appreciate your quiet "gnoming". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Patrol QuestionEdit

Hi Dear , i want to ask when the article is published what would be tag to put on article so reviewer like you can get notifications that this page must be patrolled or am i missing something ? kindly clarify it , much thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talkcontribs) 06:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

MemonBhai, as long as the article is in the mainspace (i.e. it doesn't have a "Draft:" prefix) then it will be in the new article queue and a new page reviewer will get to it eventually, no need for any special action on your part. Currently the backlog is roughly 90 days long. signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

well thanks i usually create articles direct and few editors are editing it i mean they are changing mistakes adding reference so i thought it is patrolled.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talkcontribs) 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hans MortensenEdit

Hi Rosguill. Seems you added some templates to the contribution on Hans Mortensen. Which is fine, though I'm unsure where the article needs additional references according to you. But could you by any chance review the article once again, as I made some changes to it which hopefully has neutralized what you consider subjective wording (no additional citations or references added yet, unfortunately). Kind regards RODAPA (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

RODAPA, it looks much better now. While you may not have added any citations, it looks like another editor had done so since I added the tag, so I went ahead and removed that as well. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello Rosguill,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thank you for the early support at my RfA. Our NPP community is important to me and it was so gratifying to receive such enthusiastic support from you and other patrollers. I look forward to our work together and hope that I continue to have the correct attitude and temperament as an administrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, congrats on surviving your RfA! The notification popped up for me while I was explaining to a friend how Wikipedia's bureaucracy works so instead of an explanation of how RfA works they ended up with a solid minute of me telling them how excited I was that you were applying for the mop. signed, Rosguill talk 23:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese historyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Opinion polling for the next Italian general electionEdit

Please comment on Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing Super Audio CD disputeEdit

This is still ongoing. So far we have two editors for the change (which is to remove a reference to a controversial and obsolete study from the article lead), one editor "50/50", and one editor adamantly opposed. My initial DRN request was ignored by the editor who seems adamantly opposed to any change to the article, and died on the vine. An RfC hasn't attracted any additional outside opinions. The opposing editor (who's been blocked 9 times for edit warring and disruptive editing) is trying to straw-man the argument to death and is ignoring the secondary sources he demanded early on. The page is locked, but that ends tomorrow. What next? Open a new DRN? I'm a writer and editor by trade in real life, but inexperienced with dealing with this sort of thing on Wikipedia. Thanks. Dharmabumstead (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Dharmabumstead, DRN is a voluntary process, so for as long as other parties to this conflict aren't interested in participating there, there's nothing we can do to help there. I would be a bit more patient with the RfC--they're supposed to run for 30 days before being closed, so it would be premature to start looking for other options right now. It seems like one of the other editors is trying to argue for some sort of compromise, so there may be a solution through working with them.
A word of advice that's applicable here, but also in general on Wikipedia talk pages, is to be a bit more succinct when making arguments, and avoid back-and-forth arguments unless you're actually making significant progress toward a compromise. Seeing a wall of text makes uninvolved editors less likely to want to get involved. This is doubly true for when you're using an RfC to mediate a dispute, since by definition you've already hashed out the main arguments with editors who disagree. State your case, allow the other side to state theirs, and then back off and let other editors weigh in. The only case where it may be appropriate to respond to an editor you're disputing with during an RfC is if they are actively misrepresenting your position or the contents of a specific source, and even then, a single sentence stating your objection should suffice. A general rule of thumb in Wikipedia discussions is that whoever talks more loses. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. Unfortunately that other editor has already made some stuff up, both about me (in the original DRN) and in deliberately mischaracterizing quotes from a paywalled trade journal article he thought I couldn't see. I'm new here and find this aggressive behavior discouraging.
Can the page remain locked until the RfC is played out? The other editor in question has a long history of bans for disruptive editing/edit warring, and I think he'll just start doing it again when the block runs out tomorrow. Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Dharmabumstead, if they engage in edit warring or other sanctionable behavior, you can open a case at WP:ANI. Be forewarned that your own editing record will come under scrutiny if you go there, so make sure that the other party is actually engaging in uncivil, sanctionable behavior (violating anti-edit warring rules does count), and that you don't have any relevant skeletons in your own closet before going there. Make sure to also read the instructions about how to open an ANI case before filing there, as they are non-trivial and failure to comply can derail the case that you're trying to make.
You could also request for renewed page protections at WP:RPP, although I'm not sure how likely they are to be granted. The bright side is that there aren't really any consequences for a single declined page-protection request. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. Dharmabumstead (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andy NgoEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedbackEdit

Thank you for your notes on the Nagananda Kodituwakku page, its much appreciated as its my first time working within the Wiki community. I am not sure if this is the best way to approach you, so please let me know if there is a better way. I've reviewed your points and my notes are below:

1. exclusively working on this one article - I am new to the community and I have taken an interest in Sri Lankan politics in the light of the presidential election set in Sri Lanka for November 2019. I am looking to add more content as the proceedings escalate however there was an incomplete page and I added my collaboration based on how I thought Wiki worked - please let me know if it works otherwise.

2. uploading a portrait photo of the subject and claiming it as your own work - I had issues with the uploading the photo I received from a media spokesperson of Nagananda and therefore was unable to successfully add in the author, but I did get verification from the spokesperson to release rights to use on Wikipedia and any other media outlet. My previous attempts of uploading a photo failed for a copy right issue even though permission was granted. Please advice on what's the best cause of action.

3. The article's pro-Nagananda POV - upon reflection I've also noticed some language which need reviewing for neutrality - thank you for flagging, I'll edit and update shortly. --Kas k 24 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Kas k 24, regarding your concerns:
  1. . Honestly don't worry about this. It's a minor red flag for those of us on the lookout for paid editing when a new account edits one article significantly and then does not edit anything else. However, there is no requirement for you to edit anything other than what you are interested in.
  2. I'm actually not 100% sure what the procedure is for correctly uploading a photo provided by someone else with permission. You may want to find an editor more involved in image uploads. Image permissions are unfortunately one of the more confusing aspects of Wikipedia, because there's separate rules for uploading directly to Wikipedia vs. uploading to Wikimedia Commons. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We got a problemEdit

Quite big one. Someone vandalised page Nick Mennell by writing total nonsense. We must undo this vandalism, quickly.Temuera (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Temuera

Temuera I'm afraid I'm not really sure what you're talking about. At any rate, if you see vandalism, feel free to revert it yourself. Persistent vandalism can be addressed by requesting page protection or opening a case at WP:AIV. For more info, see WP:VANDAL signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion taggingEdit

Hello, Rosguill,

Thank you for your speedy deletion tagging. I do have one request. Can you go into your Twinkle preferences and check the boxes for each CSD category so that Twinkle sends a tagging notification to the page creator? Then notification will happen automatically each time you tag a page and the article, template, redirect or category creator will know that their page has been tagged and is likely going to be deleted. You just have to make sure each speedy deletion category box is checked. Thanks very much for all of your work. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz, done. At first I was confused because I thought I had that set up correctly, but it turns out I was just missing it for redirect-specific tagging. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for InstanaEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Instana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FabianLange (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Undo Change for Bollards pageEdit

User MGKay and I work together on the bollards page and the bollards page edits are complete so I moved it to being published. Please undo your unpublish. 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshSkidmore (talkcontribs)

AshSkidmore Regardless of whether you're working together, an article with comments in the article text about how it should be used as a draft for another article is not ready for mainspace. If you want to eventually publish this article, I would suggest moving it to the draft space and going through the articles for creation process. As an additional word of advice, the correct place to put editorial comments about an article is its talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CESNUREdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CESNUR. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adam Leitman BaileyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Help about creating a new pageEdit

Dear Rosguill; I wonder if you can help me in creating a new page. This is my intention: I would like to write a wikipedia article about a mathematical fact which has been recently published in a Journal (so not original). I doubt there is already a wikipedia page about it. I am then looking for an adopter, English native speaker and with a background in mathematics. I have a question about notability: the argument is interesting (there are already maths wikipedia articles of similar kind) and the source is reliable, but the paper did not received "significant" coverage yet, and probably will not. Is this a problem? Dario Pellegrinetti —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Dario Pellegrinetti, thanks for dropping by. Unfortunately, my knowledge of math doesn't go much beyond an introduction to multi-variable calculus, so I'm unlikely to be much help writing the actual article. However, I can help evaluate its notability, and whether there is a Wikipedia-worthy article to be written about this subject. "Significant coverage" is dependent on the subject matter at hand: for an article about a mathematical fact, I would consider other papers discussing the development or providing an alternative proof of it to be significant (alternatively, if a lot of papers cite the paper publishing this fact, this may be evidence of WP:NPOSSIBLE and thus grounds for notability). As you've said that it was recently published, you may need to wait a bit before this level of coverage is reached.
You may also find it useful to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and get the opinion of editors more directly familiar with math. It would also be helpful to others trying to help you if you mention specifically which concept you want to write about, that way they can look for sources themselves. signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill; thanks a lot for your information. I would really appreciate your help then. I will give you more details in the following.

In my opinion, your knowledge in maths might be sufficient: the topic is Synthetic geometry. As reference wikipedia articles I could point you to the Van Lamoen circle or the Lester's theorem articles. As you can see from these reference articles, the content might be considered recreational and not advanced research.

The content should be original, as it is more than one year that the paper (which contains the mathematical fact I would like to write about) went under revision at three different journals: the content was considered valid and the originality was never challenged. It was rejected by the renowned American Mathematical Monthly, initially, for expository reasons and, finally, for political reasons, I would say (I can give you more detail about this if you want). It was finally published at https://ijgeometry.com/ (International Journal of Geometry). So, the content and proof should be original but I sincerely doubt that a lot of authors will cite this paper: I will, in the future, as I prepared already a sequel, but "Significant coverage" is not to be expected.

The article I would like to write will not contain any formula but a couple of drawings, and for a first draft of it, I do not intend to include the proof (which is available in the reference I will provide). Finally, I point you to the paper, so you can have the full picture: https://ijgeometry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5-13.pdf. Of course I intend to submit it at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics for a revision.

Hope to hear from you and possibly working together, if you consider this topic valid for a wikipedia article and of your interest.

Best Regards; Dario Pellegrinetti (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dario Pellegrinetti, unfortunately, if significant coverage isn't available, then we shouldn't be writing a separate article about it. However, as the paper's abstract mentions that the discovery of this property is related to the Van Aubel Theorem, it may be appropriate to write a short section about it at Van Aubel's theorem. I do have to warn you, however, that since you would appear to be the author of this paper, writing about it on Wikipedia would represent a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is not forbidden, but it is discouraged, and you should make sure to read the guideline that I linked in the previous sentence before continuing further, as you are required to disclose your COI when editing related subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 13:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill; thanks again for your significant help. I did not consider this option at first and it makes sense. I would like to adopt the following approach, hoping to find your assent:

I would first make a few modifications to the Van Aubel's theorem page: I find the theorem statement slightly imprecise and incomplete. For instance, it is not specified how the squares should be constructed: they should be constructed all external to the quadrilateral or all internal to the quadrilateral (this is specified in my paper). Moreover, it is shown in the picture a complex quadrilateral for which external and internal make no sense and a more precise formulation must be adopted for the theorem to be true. There's a point here which should be considered: I could refer to my paper for these clarifications. Am I allowed? Would you mind to follow my editings for comments and language checks? Is it possible then to ask the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to review my modifications?

Then I could wait for the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics revision. And I could point them the fact that I intend to add a result which belongs to me, revealing my COI and disclosing my COI when I actively add the result on the wikipage. Does it makes sense to you?

By the way, I already modified a scientific wikipedia article, including a reference of mine: Schiaparelli EDM. Is this very bad? Dario Pellegrinetti (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dario Pellegrinetti, regarding edits to Van Aubel's theorem, go right ahead! If you want me to check for grammar, just ping me when you're done. I don't think you need to check in with WikiProject Mathematics for this. As for referring to your own paper, consider carefully whether your paper is really the best available source for a given claim. I think it's ok to cite it if you don't have other sources available, but you should still declare your COI when you do so. As long as the reference isn't woefully inadequate and you don't go around replacing other valid references with references to your own work, I don't think anyone will mind. However, do be careful to make sure that the claims are completely backed by the provided citation: even though you are an expert on these topics, writing content which isn't 100% in a source is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 14:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill; thanks a lot. I will start this evening if I find the time, or maybe tomorrow. I will have a look on how, technically, I should disclose my COI. And, of course, I will let you know when I am done with the editing. Thanks again for the very helpful suggestions and Best Regards; Dario Pellegrinetti (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill;

I finished the first editing session of the Van Aubel's theorem wikipage. I would really appreciate if you can have a look at what I have done (especially at the English language). I think I correctly disclosed my COI in the talk page, but maybe you have some comments. Regarding the addition of the new section I would like to ask your opinion about the following. It will be convenient to define a nomenclature as I did in my paper, in order to simplify the exposition of the main result (the circle). But, in addition, an auxiliary theorem presented as well in the paper as Theorem 1.2 should be stated. All this will become quite long and longer than the Van Aubel theorem statement itself, which should remain the central part of the wikipedia article. I think this is quite unfair and unbalanced. What do you think?

Another problem might be with the figures: I have to find how to include them, but they will be different in style with the already attached one. This might also be not nice, I think. Thanks for your availability and Best Regards; Dario Pellegrinetti —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dario Pellegrinetti, looking at your edits, I don't see any obvious grammatical errors. If there are any mistakes, they're hidden in the more technical terms that I don't understand anyway. The COI disclosure looks fine, and I agree that including more content about the auxiliary theorem would be WP:UNDUE here. I'm honestly not sure how to advise you about the figures, as that's outside of my area of expertise. I think we may have reached the limits of my ability to help you here. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill; thanks a lot for your precious help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario Pellegrinetti (talkcontribs) 21:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milo YiannopoulosEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Kool London and Kool FMEdit

Hi User:Rosguill, thanks very much for your message and your work tidying up all my move/redirects yesterday. Apologies that I caused you some work, but you could see what I was trying to do ;) Really appreciate it! Altlondon (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

NPP MentorshipEdit

Hi there. Could you be my mentor for NPP? Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234, sure! What sort of mentoring support are you interested in? I see that you have been given temporary NPP permissions until July of next year and that you have a fair amount of reviews under your belt, so you probably don't need a full introduction to the NPP process. If all you want is someone to bounce NPP-related questions off of, I can do that. Alternatively, if you want a more engaged process, I can periodically check over your review record to look for errors, set aside articles that I come across in NPP for you to take a look at, or otherwise provide more structured lessons and tests.
Some advice that I can give right away is a list of additional scripts to install. I see that you already have a script installer, stubsorter, and rater, which are all useful for NPP. In addition, you should install:
  • If you haven't enabled it yet, you should definitely use Twinkle, which is a genuine lifesaver. If you do have it 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:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history
  • If you're patrolling redirects and sending them to RfD a lot, you should install User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v3.js, which lets you close discussions with less hassle
  • I would also apply for page mover permissions, as these are helpful-to-necessary for fixing cut-paste moves or articles created at the wrong titles. Being active in NPP is a solid justification for requesting this permission, you should have no problem receiving them. Once you've done that, install User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js, which makes swapping pages even easier.
Looking at your AfD record so far, you've gotten off to a bit of a rocky start. I would be a bit more hesitant to nominate articles for AfD. Make sure to do a thorough WP:BEFORE search before nominating––if the subject matter is likely to be covered in a language that you are not able to effectively search for online, you may want to avoid nominating it at all and leave it to another reviewer to deal with. Additionally, sometimes you can just redirect an article instead of nominating it for deletion: Ethiopia at the 2020 Summer Olympics for instance, should have just been redirected to Ethiopia at the Olympics. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough and helpful answer. I am just looking for someone to direct any questions or concerns when reviewing. Yes, AfD hasn't been to great for me, which is why I am looking for someone to help me in that respect. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234, alright, feel free to reach out whenever you want some help. As for general AfD pointers, if you're on the fence about an article, I would suggest putting it on your watchlist and moving on and see what another reviewer does (depending on whether you want a true clean read, you can either place a notability tag or not).
Also, I don't know how much this has been the case for you, but I generally avoid placing an AfD tag if I had a PROD declined (that is to say, I let someone else take care of it) unless I am 100% confident that it is not notable. While it's not against policy to go to AfD after PROD yourself, doing so can put you in a battleground mentality because you get personally invested in being right about the article's lack of notability. It can also give the article's creator the impression that you're hounding them, making them more combative as well. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabine WeyandEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Fii3rdEdit

...just got deprodded. You want to send it to AfD? I'd be happy to but I might be tempted to just copy your PROD rationale and it would look lazy :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae, done, although I doubt anyone would care (or even necessarily notice) if you copied the rationale. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar of IntegrityEdit

  The Barnstar of Integrity
I'm impressed that you were willing to consider an opposing view at Talk:Houthi movement and even modify your own view. Not something I see very often! Cerebellum (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Cerebellum thank you! I apologize if I was a bit bellicose at the outset, I was fighting jetlag when I first started engaging with the discussion and probably should have toned it down. signed, Rosguill talk 20:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:VeridiaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veridia. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

New articleEdit

Hi, please check and review the new article I created, Alamzaib Mahsud, because it still does not appear in Google search. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Khestwol, our backlog for page reviews is currently about three months long. Please be patient and someone will review the article in due time. I took a glance at the article, and while the subject is likely notable, the coverage currently cited does not clearly meet WP:GNG. I would suggest looking for additional sources (non-English sources may be a good place to look if you have the relevant proficiencies), as right now the most significant coverage cited is either in opinion pieces or propaganda outlets like Radio Free Liberty, neither of which count for much. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There are indeed many additional sources in Pashto and Urdu languages (including from BBC and VOA) about Alamzaib Mahsud. If I get time later I will try to add. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:70th anniversary of the People's Republic of ChinaEdit

Return to the user page of "Rosguill".