Lugnuts at redirect pseduopermEdit

I noticed you added Lugnuts to the whitelist for redirects. Just confirming you did so with full knowledge of the discussions which lead to their normal autopatrol being revoked? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, my understanding was that the revocation was due to issues with stub quality, but I didn't pay close attention. In my experience, I've never noticed a problem with their redirects, and their contribution log is too long for me to pull up on xtools. Let me know if there are any redirect-relevant concerns I've overlooked. signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed this. After they had their autopatrol revoked, I was slogging through their stubs and redirects. FWIW, Not a single redirect did I have an issue with.Onel5969 TT me 23:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewedEdit

Hello, Rosguill

Thank you for creating Bohbot Communications.

User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi. Am doing a round-robin swap

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bohbot Communications, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Need your help with sourcesEdit

I am not a new editor but need help with sources used for the Our Lady of Medjugorje page and its related pages. I know some of the guidelines regarding sources and have been studying them. There are two of us editing this page and related pages and we are in disagreement often. I need a source, wikipedia expert who is neutral to assess them. We had an editor who helped clean out the page and helped us create 3 lists of the references we gathered. [[1]] Thank you for your considertion.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Red Rose 13, I'm sorry but this looks like more work than I can commit to at this time. You may be able to find further help at either WP:DRN or WP:RSN. signed, Rosguill talk 23:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Kuruluş: Osman charactersEdit

Asking since you're the protecting admin: Would it be plausible to reduce the protection level to WP:PENDINGCHANGES since the level of disruption seems to have dropped significantly and a lot of contributions from IPs and non-auto confirmed users may be constructive? The level of editing is pretty low atm, and I think PC would take care of any disruption/vandalism, although I hope it is not tedious to implement if the page is frequently edited once more. IronManCap (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IronManCap,   Done signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Adopt Me!!Edit

Hello There Rosguill I am very curious to know that weather you would mind adopting me? I am really very much Interested in learning it more under someone like you !! Thank You! Suryabeej (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Suryabeej, what sort of help are you looking for, and what sort of editing work are you interested in doing? signed, Rosguill talk 15:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, Sir I am from India and i feel I have a bit of understanding about India related references and apart from that I have interest from the entertainment, Political and Book related topics, I would want to work in the betterment of these topics, and most of all I want to work against vandalism and puffery as I have noticed a load of Puffing of PR is going around, so I want to fight the Black Hat SEO as well.Suryabeej   talk 16:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Suryabeej, if you're interested in anti-vandalism work, you should consider signing up for our counter-vandalism school. As for the other contributions to India topics, I would suggest that you dive in and work on improving existing articles. If you're unsure how to do so, you can take a look at WP:Task Center and look for the intersection of topics you are interested in and articles that need work. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill Thank you Sir, I am going to sign in for the counter-vandalism school. Suryabeej   talk 05:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

NPP SchoolEdit

Hello, I am interested in joining the NPP school! Thank you! Heart (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, sure thing, did you want to do the full course or were there specific topics that you want to focus on? signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, I would like to do the full course, please! Heart (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797, I've started a page for you at User:Rosguill/HeartGlow30797 NPPSCHOOL, please feel free to begin whenever you want. signed, Rosguill talk 16:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Article in Google without ReviewEdit

I have created this article WazirX a few days back. Today, when I check this in Google, I can see that it is indexed but not reviewed. Being a NPP reviewer, it intrigued me. Is this usual? Is it a bug or something which needs to be taken care of? - The9Man (Talk) 03:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The9Man, hm, I'm not sure I was able to reproduce the Google results; I don't see the Wikipedia page in a Google search, and in a DuckDuckGo search I see a preview that is clearly taken from the Wikipedia page, but no actual result linking to Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, Please see this https://g.co/kgs/tBa6TF. - The9Man (Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The9Man, hm, that page shows me a preview from Wikipedia, but doesn't show Wikipedia in the actual results. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true, not in the actual results but in the knowledge panel. I got it, what you meant there. Thanks. - The9Man (Talk) 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The9Man, yeah, the situation isn't ideal, but my understanding is that this is generally implemented on the search engine end and there's very little we can do about it. I don't see anything in the page's history or logs that would suggest an edge case on our end causing the behavior. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sourcesEdit

First, thanks as always for the Herculean effort you do over at NPP. Second, thanks also for keeping WP:NPPRS.Onel5969 TT me 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, pretty sure you've been putting in more work than me recently (my numbers are high, but mostly just because I do a lot of redirects), so thank you to you too. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Question from ElijahandskipEdit

Hey Rosguill. So I recently created 2021 Hialeah shooting all in compliance with my tban. I also participated in a brief talk page discussion (Intro to a now move request discussion), where I gave my opinion on the article title. An official page move discussion (Talk:2021 Hialeah shooting#Requested move 30 May 2021) began, but between my previous comment and the official discussion starting, information about a US governor was added to the article, which means I cannot edit the article/talk anymore due to my Post 1992 US politics T-ban. More for formality and such, may I have a 1 edit exemption from my t-ban to do a copy/past edit of my !vote, which is in a whole different discussion (Talk:2021 Hialeah shooting#Title), so it gets counted for the requested move discussion? I am fine if the answer is no, but I though I would ask. Thank you! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, so, your topic ban applies at a content-level, not a page level. What that means is that in theory, you can continue to edit the page (and discuss on the talk page) so long as the material that you are editing or discussing is not AP2 material (i.e. in this case you could continue to participate in everything except politicians' comments and government responses to the issue). That having been said, I think that the advice Fram related in their first reply here is good advice. Editing an article about a recent US mass shooting is going to be a tightrope walk as far as avoiding violating your tban, and you will likely save yourself a headache by focusing on other parts of the encyclopedia to work on.. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill:, forgive me for seeming dumb here, but since my thing is content not page based, why was my edit [2] on Ty Bollinger enough for a ban? My edit had 0 politics since it was about a COVID misinformation YT channel and based on what you just said, I would have been allowed to edit about a YouTube channel as long as I didn't talk about politics/government. From the previous discussion on your talk page (User talk:Rosguill#Apologizing for a T ban violation), I understood it as WP:BROADLY, and even other editors eluded that I couldn't edit articles that even involved politics anywhere in the article (Fram's comment about it months ago [3]). Now you are saying I can edit those articles as long as I don't edit about politics/government? Could you possibly explain what exactly I am allowed and not allowed to edit since I am getting mixed signals? Thanks in advance. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Elijahandskip, COVID disinformation counts as a political topic in my view. signed, Rosguill talk 02:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Debate between me (Eliahandskip) and Fram. Not related to the question asked.
US school shootings are almost certain to get political reactions and (like here) bickering between opposing politicians. While creating such an article is technically not a TBan violation, it would be much simpler if you just let someone else do the honours and stayed away from such recent US articles, to avoid these recurring problems. Fram (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Fram, I think you should actually know what the discussion is before giving your opinion. This wasn't a school shooting. Please just don't comment unless I do something wrong. In this case, I am asking a simple question to an admin, not you, and you just couldn't resist jumping in even though you didn't know what the article was about... Elijahandskip (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh right, US mass shooting, that changes my message completely... Any such mass shootings are almost certain to get political reactions etcetera. Can you please focus on the essentials instead of nitpicking a side issue? You get into trouble because you create (or edit) articles on US current events, which then turn uot to become political in some way. This isn't hard to predict, but gives issues with your topic ban (either with you violating it, or with you having to drop out of discussions to aboid violating it). The simple solution is not to create or edit such articles but to stick to non-US or non-current topics, where the changes of your topic ban interfering are much smaller. Fram (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
In closing this rant between me and you to focus back to what I asked the admin, I will say this. First, I wasn't "nitpicking a side issue", but you commenting on a question that I asked an admin feel like you just want to cause problems again. Second, no, I won't stop creating current event articles, but I took a week break and read about 20 policies, so I actually understand Wikipedia fully now. And third, please don't comment on random things to to bring up the past again. In this specific instance, you commenting on a question I asked to an admin, is not advice at all, despite what you think. It was just a way to discredit me. While that isn't a personal attack, and you are fully able to "beat the horse carcass", I recommend you read Wikipedia:Civility, specifically the part about Try not to get too intense. (Italic in original). You have a passion to contribution watch me, and no matter what I beg for you too stop, you are fully able to do that. But, maybe for a little bit of time, you should watch me (to make sure I don't make a mistake), but not be too "superior" to me by commenting on just about anything I ask about. A simple question to an admin has now turned into a long, debate over things that shouldn't have even been talked about in the nature of the original topic/question. I will now back away from this discussion, and will hopefully, let Rosguill consider my original question. Have a wonderful day Fram! Elijahandskip (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Katie BrittEdit

I know that you have nominated Katie Britt for deletion. I have no objection with that. I have decided that to create Draft:Katie Britt that redirects to 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama that will be moved to Article namespace if Katie Britt is a candidate in the 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama, which is actually very likely. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I have now decided to improve Katie Britt by replacing the redirect to Richard Shelby with 2022 United States Senate election in Alabama#Republican primary since Britt has an announcement pending in that election. Is that fine? Can we keep the page? Muhibm0307 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Muhibm0307, since you're just proposing a new target, I would suggest that you raise that in the RFD discussion so that other editors can weigh in. signed, Rosguill talk 15:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. Muhibm0307 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Page « Peer Community in » tags (pov, third-party)Edit

Hi there,

the references on the page apparently have been updated in late Jan. and seem to be less self-referential. I have trimmed some parts of the text, and removed the non-neutral sentence as suggested in the talk page. Do you think the badges can be removed now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peer_Community_in&action=history

-- LaFambe (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

LaFambe, hm, I'm not sure I'm seeing the necessary changes; additional third-party citations to some academic papers have been added, but as far as I can tell these sources say very little about Peer Community in, and in most cases do not even fully support the claims that they are attached to in the article. Meanwhile, the Recognition section is overly reliant on primary sources (i.e. organizations saying that they recognize PCi, rather than third-parties reporting that organizations recognize PCi). The "Media coverage" section has a similar issue: it's essentially a list of examples of times that the media has mentioned the subject. A better way to develop the article would be to take the reliable sources cited in the Media coverage and rewrite the article using them as your main source of information, with PCi-affiliated publications used only to provide greater depth to phenomena that the independent sources already draw attention to. signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

BirajBhattaraiJwEdit

Hi if you take a look at their warnings and repeated creation of promotional articles here you may think a block is in order. All the best Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Advice regarding an RfCEdit

Hello Rosguill, I'm afraid I need your advice once again. I'm having problems with a user constantly "refactoring" an RfC to remove all discussion. I've asked them to stop doing it but they just did it again. I tried opening a communication channel through their talk page a couple of times but that also failed (see their reply here:[4]). Could you suggest a way to resolve this issue? I would like to avoid escalating the issue but I've tried everything at this point and the behaviour is very disruptive to the discussion. The articles are suffering as a result. Thank you as always for any advice you can give me and sorry for bothering you once again. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, I reverted their last refactor, as it appears to have overstepped what is normally appropriate. You may want to bring this to either AN (to request an uninvolved editor to refactor the page) or ANI (to open a case if there is disruption) if the matter is not resolved. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
to remove all discussion is again WP:Casting aspersions, Gtoffoletto, can you please read that. --Almaty (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Almaty: I'm not at all saying you are doing it in bad faith. I think you might not realise how disruptive your behaviour can be to the discussion. I've asked you several times to try to slow down, avoid WP:BLUDGEON (which is not "persuasion, and compromise", don't change other people's comments/discussions, and try to listen to what other editors say. But haven't had any success so far. I do not wish to escalate this matter. Please just try to be more careful in the future. We want the same thing and I'm just trying to help you out.
@Rosguill: as always, thank you for looking into this and for the advice. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 21:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
don't change other people's comments/discussions again accusing me of things i have never done. This is what casting aspersions is. You really should monitor your own behaviour before judging others. And eventually if you question yourself enough, you may realise that you have a very odd inability to realise that these particular sentences need WP:COMPENTENCE to get right, and recognise that you have had such behaviours before in May 2020. [5] --Almaty (talk)
Almaty, Gtoffoletto, if you absolutely must continue bickering over this, do it somewhere other than my talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you again Rosguill. A portion of the discussion has been removed once again. [6] Do you think it is an appropriate refactor? Any suggestions on how to resolve this peacefully? I'm running out of ideas. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Almaty, may I suggest that you avoid refactoring this discussion, or at least avoid refactors that involve moving other editors' comments to a collapsed section? While refactoring is usually fine, I think it's reasonable for other editors to object to an involved editor moving comments under a collapse header. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MentorshipEdit

Before I expand into why, would you @Rosguill be open for mentorship right now? J-Man11 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

J-Man11, I was pinged to a discussion where this was suggested, so I think I already have a guess as to why you're requesting this. That having been said, I'm unfamiliar with your editing work as well as what you are specifically seeking help doing, so I'm curious to know what kind of editing work you're interested in getting help with so that I can assess whether or not I'm a good fit to help you. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You would be correct. Though there are several areas where I personally want to improve in, two areas specifically have caused a lot of ruckus. The main area is with primary versus secondary sources. While the second area is, though I have been able to fix quite a bit recently following advise is backing off of 2020/21 articles. I originally wanted to do these because I wanted to provide a picture of some modern armed forces as they appear now. However, this of course has issues because finding 100% up-to-date information is pretty tough, and honestly just not reliable and pointless looking back now. Though I have removed these following advice from @Buckshot06, these have most definitely left a stain in his head with regard to me in this area. Not only can I see how this is an issue after he calmly explained it, but I see that I was very wrong is even assuming I would be able to make these articles with proper referencing. Which brings me to the second main flaw, referencing. I only recently started understanding the difference between primary and secondary sourcing, which I now feel I have under control. However, many of the articles last month used many primary sources, which was when I didn't understand the difference between the two. I've only also now realised how important WP:SYNTH is, again, only realising what this is following Buckshot's comments.
So, what's the point in asking you? Well, I understand Buckshot's concerns, and after he finally calmly explained and linked me to the areas which I needed to read (Primary/Second, Synth, and Notability), I feel I do have a better grasp, but of course you can never get rid of the past. So, instead I'm looking to the future and looking around for a Mentor to help, especially in the area of proper referencing, and would request you/they check all drafts/sandboxes when it's time to transfer them into the main space. This is something which I've wanted for a while, but only recently @Thewolfchild directed me to you and the actual page for mentors through which I was directed to you. J-Man11 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
J-Man11, thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately I don't think that I can commit to reviewing all of your prospective article creations, although I would be open to answering questions regarding specific passages that you're concerned about in a given article. Would that be a mentorship model that you would be amenable to? signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe @Buckshot06 would be able to answer that better than myself. Especially considering recently I've considered him a mentor, but I'm also driving him crazy because of my past mistakes. Personally, I really think any help from both of you would be astonishing, but as @Thewolfchild has stated, and I think he's right, a full time mentor would probably be the best. J-Man11 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
To continue on the conversation from a month ago, my main issue (and still remains this now) is using primary sources too much. In addition just the simple stuff like where references go in a sentence, and how to to submit a draft for review before posting (something which I've used in the past, but always take about 2 months to actually do). So put it simply, the simple stuff plus some expansions on the basic things. J-Man11 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
J-Man11, addressing the first area you identified, do you find you have trouble identifying primary sources from secondary ones? signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say about 80% of the time I can't tell the difference. The basics I'm aware of are, a publishing from a government/ministry source is primary, while a secondary source is something like a book written by someone in said group/formation, etc. Though, I still have a hard time deciphering still. J-Man11 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
J-Man11, so, I think the first thing to clarify is the definition of a primary source. A primary source is a source that either has a direct connection to the topic in question, or which provides information about a topic without any analysis, whereas a secondary source has both distance from the topic, and provides independent analysis. Additionally, old sources generally require additional interpretation, so a sufficiently old secondary source may also be treated as a primary source (the definition of "old" varies by topic, but generally anything older than 100 years should not be accepted at face value).
So with that in mind, let's say that we're adding content to Battle of Verdun. Examples of primary sources would be:
  • Letters or oral accounts by soldiers involved in the battle
  • Field reports of casualties
  • Statements made by the German or French governments
Secondary sources would be:
  • Books or academic papers written by subject-matter experts after the battle
  • Articles in reliable general interest magazines or newspapers in the 21st century
An example of a source containing both primary and secondary content would be an article that includes both independent analysis and extensive direct quotations from a source tied to the event; the information in the quotes would be primary, and analysis provided by the author would be secondary.
Newspaper reports contemporary to WWI are in a gray area, due to both their age and the possibility that the reports were altered for propaganda purposes (which was a common feature of WWI-era press). Because the Battle of Verdun is hardly an obscure topic for academic study, as editors we have the luxury of being able to access a very wide range of academic sources, so we would have little-to-no reason to use a questionable source.
So, any questions? Want to try some practice problems? signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind some practice, because I thought I was doing almost all Secondary. However, if I do add a primary, I add secondary sources to back it up, though that seems to not be something which Buckshot and Dormskirk are fans of for some reason. J-Man11 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
J-Man11, I've set up a practice page at User:Rosguill/J-Man11 primary sources practice and have added a first set of questions. Feel free to work on it at whatever pace you wish. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Perry Mason episode murderers
added links pointing to Neil Hamilton, Mary Webster, Mary Mitchell and Robin Hughes

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

  The Redirect Barnstar
for reviewing my redirects! Princess of Ara(talk) 18:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing (those redirects + a question)....Edit

...Harry Elkes and Archie McEachern. I do have a question...should these redirect and the other similar "pages" have
{{Redirect category shell| {{R to list entry}} }} or
{{R from person}} like Edouard Taylor?
Is it a matter of editorial discretion or is there some policy as to which is more correct? At the present time List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death has 8 such redirect-linkages. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Shearonink, it's left up to editorial discretion, although the template documentation (at [[Template:Template Name]] may contain some guidance. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking for an essay of yoursEdit

I can’t for the life of me remember the name, but it had to do with notability, you didn’t move it to Wikipedia, If I recollect correctly you said you deliberately moved it to your Userspace instead. It’s something about notability and bias or something along those lines, can you help me locate the essay, there’s something important I need to read there. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, was it User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist? signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
That’s the one! Yes! Thanks. Celestina007 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision 1027551951 by Muhibm0307 (talk) good faith rv, while I don't have an issue with the actual change here, editors have expressed other opinions in the RfD so we shouldn't remove the tag or change anything until that's been closed by an uninvolved editorEdit

How long will the Rfd last? Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, until an uninvolved editor closes it, generally no more than a week or two. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Two weeks from when you opened it will be June 11, on Friday. Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, sure, but we aren't clockwork and there is no deadline. The editors who typically close RfDs generally keep the backlog under control. I wouldn't worry about this, it will be taken care of in good time. signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. Muhibm0307 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

  Administrator changes

  AshleyyoursmileLess Unless
  HusondMattWadeMJCdetroitCariocaVague RantKingboykThunderboltzGwen GaleAniMateSlimVirgin (deceased)

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

New Page PatrolEdit

Hi Rosguill! I just wanted to thank you for all your effort doing new page patrol. I imagine it must get pretty tedious reviewing the redirect pages I create. ;) Thanks! SpikeToronto 12:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Need some help for CSD nomination of a redirect pageEdit

Hi, I was working on some reorganization of US House of Representatives election pages and came across some redirect pages which should be deleted in order to move other articles to that name. So, I've nominated them per WP:G6. This is important as all US House elections use a set of templates which are not consistent with the election articles on District of Columbia.

Therefore I wish to move:

But the latter in all of the above cases is already a redirect page, which needs to be deleted in order to make the move. As already mentioned in the nominations, the word "the" is not used for any other state/territory election. Furthermore the articles on the Mayoral & AG elections in District of Columbia do not contain the word "the" either. And this inconsistency is causing some templates to break down.

Sorry, if I disturbed but I came here because you're in the page history of each of these redirect page, and also an administrator who can help me by deleting those redirect pages so that I can continue with my reorganization stuff. Thank you. Cheers! CX Zoom (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

CX Zoom,   Done signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  Thank you very much! – CX Zoom (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Marked a draft as patrolled by mistake.Edit

Hey @Rosguill, Hope you are doing well. Actually I was reviewing a Draft from my cell phone. I marked the draft as patrolled by mistake. What to do know? Sorry to bother you. signed, Iflaq (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Iflaq, I don't see any review record in the logs so my guess is that while the reviewing UI showed up and you clicked it, it didn't actually do anything, I wouldn't worry about it. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, I guess you checked my curation log. Kindly have a look at my patrol log. Here. Once again sorry to bother you & Thankyou for your help. signed, Iflaq (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Iflaq, I checked the log of the page itself, which should be the only one that matters as far as releasing results to search engines is concerned. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, Is there any way to unpatrol it? As it was a mistake. Thankyou. signed, Iflaq (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Iflaq, no, but as I said, don't worry about it. signed, Rosguill talk 02:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill, Thankyou 🙂 signed, Iflaq (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPPS requestEdit

I wish to do the NPPS and I am not going to do it to collect hats. Could you please create the NPPS page? Dr Salvus 23:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, is there anything you'd like to focus on, or did you want to do the full course? signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I will do the full course Dr Salvus 00:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, here you go User:Rosguill/Dr Salvus NPPSCHOOL signed, Rosguill talk 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I will start tomorrow. Dr Salvus 00:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
How many types of courses are there? Dr Salvus 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, for editors who know that they only need to work on certain types of work associated with new page reviewing, I focus the course on that work. Other tutors also have different teaching methods. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, I am interested to review only soccer-related articles. Is there a course who deals with this topic? Dr Salvus 17:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, not really, new page review tasks are largely the same across subject matter. By certain types of work, I meant things like assessing notability vs. neutrality vs. idenfigying copyvio, etc. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

NPR Rights and marking COI pages as reviewedEdit

Hey, following up here as suggested. FIrst of all, thank you for acknowledging my efforts on assessing notability. I agree Christian Sarkar was a slip. I should have probed more when the creator asked for help at my talk page [7]. However, other than that, the mistake that I have made is that I didn't unreview the pages after I placed the tag. For example, Kiefer (musician) was a notability tag, Rachel Ikemeh was BLP unsourced tag, Simulate (company) was a notability tag. Others also have a similar story (some tag or the other) I didn't know that the pages get auto-reviewed if I put a tag on them or if I CSD/PROD/AFD them. So them being reviewed was not intentional. This was also bought to my notice by another senior editor [8]. After that, I have understood this and I have made a note to ensure that I am unreviewing them if I am placing a tag.

I also want to highlight that in case I have doubts, I do ask this question. For example, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].


That being said and done, I would still like to learn more on how to identify a COI and what should be the course of action if I feel there is COI. I enjoy reviewing new pages. It also helps me polish my editing skills and is a great logical reasoning exercise for brain. So I hope you will be considerate to understand that what seems like a massive slip, was more of an ignorance on a certain aspect which had led to this. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, the situation right now is that the main area where you would need to improve in order to do NPP is COI-spotting; unfortunately, we need to be cautious about how public we make information related to catching COI editors, as there is high potential for abuse by undisclosed paid editors. As you have only been editing for a few months, I can't in good conscience provide you with COI-spotting lessons at this time. In order for that to change, I would need to see a track record of editing from you that demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that you are here to build the encyclopedia in good faith, and not a paid editor putting in their dues to subvert our content approval processes. In practice, that would mean keeping up a habit of making constructive edits for a relatively long time, a year at a minimum, before either requesting instruction in anti-COI work or asking for another trial run (if you think you've gotten enough experience spotting COI just from your normal editing work). I know this isn't what you want to hear from me at this time, but please do not take it personally: this is unfortunately just the level of caution that we are forced to take given the dimensions of Wikipedia as a project. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Rosguill, I think my talk page is a testimony of my intentions and efforts here. I have tried to help each and every editor who has come to me and given detailed feedbacks and helped them. I have also improved many drafts who were close to being accepted (and other reviewers felt same) and have simply submitted those for other reviewers to accept. This is surely what I didn't expect to hear but I will try to see it from your point of view and empathise. It is important that we are cautious. I am slightly discouraged but won't let it come in way of doing what I was already doing. Will also keep a close watch for COI-spotting. Might tag you or reach out to you for questions if that's okay? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomadicghumakkad, thanks for understanding and feel free to reach out to me with further questions. signed, Rosguill talk 14:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Rosguill , very interestingly I found the first page I wanted to ask help on. I was reviewing pages and found Draft:Zest AI which seemed notable to me (I am yet to do a complete assessment to determine if it is notable or not). I suspected that there might be a COI and voila, the user page [14] of the creator declared that they were associated with the company. How do we take it ahead from here? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Nomadicghumakkad, so given that they've declared the COI and are submitting the article through AfC, they're actually following all of our rules regarding COI editing. At this point, the only things to do differently from a normal AfC review would be to be a bit stricter about ensuring that the article is neutrally written (at a glance this draft looked fine to me, FWIW), and do some independent research about the subject online to make sure that the article isn't omitting DUE negative coverage (a WP:BEFORE style search should be enough to fulfill this). signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Nomadicghumakkad, The problem with teaching COI detection to editors is exactly as Rosguill stated. It leaves a loophole where bad faith editors can scrutinize our methods and learn to circumvent detection, I don’t even recommend any of such teachings to be done on-wiki, (For me, I’d rather share my experience/methods via e-mail, and strictly to admins or trusted co-anti spam editors who have a track record of nabbing UPE), having said, if you want to tell COI in any given article, then reading WP:ADMASQ would give you the fundamentals you need. Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Celestina007 for dropping here. Always promising to see your presence around. I see what you are saying but this seems to be a typical job & work experience paradox. You need work-ex to get a job. But you need a job to get work-ex! Nonetheless, I have started to be more cautious and being extra careful. Dropped a notice to one user [15] who was very persistent with a page that he clearly seemed to have a connection with. Also did a mistake with another one [16] to which I whole-heartedly apologized. But I think I am making some progress. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

NPP Page CurationEdit

Hi Rosguill, I hope you are well. I thought I'd approach you because you seem like one of the most active NPP editors, and we have interacted before. I created this article called Universe of Mass Effect more then a month ago. I have since created further content after this article, which has already been reviewed by various NPP members, but as far as I know no one has reviewed this one so far and I am not sure how to bring it to the attention of someone. Just wondering if you could look it over when you eventually have the time, thanks. Haleth (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Haleth, it is in the new pages queue and is awaiting a reviewer, and is likely to be reviewed within two months based on the length of the queue. signed, Rosguill talk 05:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Another editor has discussed the possibility of doing a GA review of the article, so I thought I'd touch base with the NPP as it apparently hasn't been curated yet. Haleth (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Haleth, feel free to go ahead with GA plans, they're not dependent on NPP, which exists primarily as a gatekeeper before articles get released to search engines for indexing. signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Hi! Rosguill, I am thankful to you for reviewing Levantine (cloth), Schappe, Colchester bays and Compound fabric and many more. Regards RV (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Dean singleEdit

Hi! Thanks for reviewing Dean single. I have a second email that says you changed the page, but there were no diffs, and nothing shows in the page history. Do you know why this would be?--Verbarson (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Verbarson, hm, not sure what that could be about. The only action I took at Dean single was to mark it reviewed. signed, Rosguill talk 15:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The second email came about 1 minute after the first, and I give it below, except that the three URLs were actual links, and the customary end matter is omitted. It was completely missing the usual 'To view this change...' and 'For all changes since...' sections and diffs.
Dear Verbarson,

The Wikipedia page Dean single has been changed on 17 June 2021 by
Rosguill, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_single for the current
revision.

Editor's summary:  - 

Contact the editor:
mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Rosguill
wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill

There will be no other notifications in case of further activity unless
you visit this page while logged in. You could also reset the
notification flags for all your watched pages on your watchlist.

Your friendly Wikipedia notification system
This is a mystery rather than a problem, but I am not completely happy that something is sending off emails stating that you have done something that you have not. Unless there's a bug in the review code that is sending a null change email as well as the review notification?--Verbarson (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Verbarson, that is quite odd and this is the first time I've seen something like it. My guess is that it's an edge case for the notification settings you've enabled. If you feel up to it, you can follow the instructions here to file a bug report. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
This [17] seems to describe the behaviour, though I'm not sure of the jargon.--Verbarson (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Verbarson, yeah, I think you're right. By any chance did the bug repeat after the other redirect of yours that I just reviewed? signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, yes. Second email within a minute of the first, same pattern as before.--Verbarson (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contestedEdit

I contested the speedy deletion on Draft:VII (musician). ReaIdiot (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ReaIdiot, not sure why you contacted me about this, but it looks like the situation has been resolved. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Please delete JSON pageEdit

User:Eatcha/Sentry.json, than you -- Eatcha 20:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Eatcha, sorry, as the contents of the page are related to the current AE discussion, I don't feel comfortable taking action here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have applied {{Db-userreq}} on its talk-page. The page had nothing to do with the dispute but was used by a script to check If the world "communalism" was removed by the accuser, but now I won't editing here so the page serves no purpose. I understand that you are involved in the AE therefore you don't want to get involved. Thank you -- Eatcha 15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Should I proceed or not?Edit

You know best and I think I need your advice. There’s a relatively new user who has thus far “shown good faith” but as kind individuals(both of us are, who have trusted editors that turned out to be bad faith editors) I’m unsure about this, they have asked me to teach them our methods of identifying UPE/COI. They have promised me they aren’t a bad faith editor, but only seek to help out, i really want to help out but as we all know, talk is cheap. I’m in a catch-22 scenario, do you think I should not teach them at all or do you think I should just teach them very basic non sophisticated methods of detecting UPE? Honestly any advice you can give me would be more than welcome. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, how new is the editor? I think that people generally react well if you just clearly tell them that you're not comfortable sharing this information with new editors and that it's nothing personal. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
5 months, the same user who just got denied NPR rights, ironically it was I who AGF’ed and suggested that I can teach them a few tricks, (I saw a zeal in them against UPE) In any case I have taught them nothing sophisticated as of now, but given them only WP:ADMASQ as a compass, talking with you right now I’m not sure I should continue at all, or in the very least, perhaps I’d just teach them only basic stuff and wait a year before showing them the artillery. Celestina007 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Celestina007, I would trust your judgment here; holding off for a while before showing advanced techniques sounds reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 16:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds Plausible. I’d do just that. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Engordany in European footballEdit

Hi Rosguill, I changed the redirect from modification to long name, just a question, would I use {{short name}} or {{long name}} for Engordany in European football (redirect) leading to UE Engordany in European football (page)? Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Mwiqdoh, that would be {{R from short name}}, from a shorter name to a longer name. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks for the help. Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted to stable versionEdit

Shinjoya and Ratnahastin had destroyed many caste articles to do their POV pushing in order to glorify Rajput caste. Though, i don't edit all of the articles they were editing or they had interest in. But, I have reverted some of the highly controversial articles to last stable version, when they were not touched by those editors. As per your comment while closing WP:ANI report, i have found issues in their edits. Hence, i took this step and felt the need to inform you in order to avoid further disruption in this area. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

POV question re: Paschal BaylónEdit

Hello Rosguill,

I see you placed the POV template on the article for Paschal Baylón back in December 2019, but looking at the article, it's not clear what the neutrality issue is/was. The only dispute I see listed on the relatively quiet talk page is from another user who questioned the source for the reasoning behind his given name. There is no apparent mention of anything approaching a neutrality dispute. Was there a relevant discussion that somehow got deleted?

Would you agree that it's time to remove the template from the article, given that two of the three conditions for removal would seem to be met? If so, you can do it, or I can, but I wanted to reach out to you first, since you placed the template.

Thanks, 1980fast (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

1980fast, mm, in my assessment there's neutrality issues throughout the article, consistently praising Baylón and presenting him in a positive light, rather than a neutral one. The article is also overly reliant on sources affiliated with the Catholic Church; this is unavoidable given the subject matter, but we should be especially careful about not importing those sources' POV into Wikipedia's voice. Positive anecdotes such as [his companions] respected his pious nature and his virtue, Paschal was very honest... , The humble friar never wasted food... should only be included if third-party sources have related them; accounts of miracles at his grave need to be properly attributed instead of being related in Wikipedia's voice, etc. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I made some changes to remove content that I was unable to verify, but still think that the article needs further work to reach neutrality. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources on Chetana NagavajaraEdit

Hi Rosguill! A month ago, I started the article and received a primary source tag from you. [18] Please kindly see if this can now be removed. Many thanks. --Taweetham (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taweetham (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ACE ranked choice votingEdit

Hi Rosguill: you were the #3 support for the 2020 ACE proposal on ranked-choice voting (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Users who endorse statement #5 (Schulze method)). As the proposer has since been globally locked, I'm writing to remind you that the 2021 ACE RFC will begin in two months, so if this is a proposal you wish to explore, you should consider beginning the technical work on developing the proposal and any related technical systems now. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

L235, thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure I'll be able to commit to doing much work to develop the proposal but I'll try to keep tabs on it and may be able to support other editors. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

  Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Renu RajEdit

Hello, I've once removed the COI tag from Renu Raj which was placed by GermanKity, see. Someone else also removed the COI tag before me, look. But German kitty is doing the same process (tagging undisclosed payment tag) again and again. This is vandalism, right? 27.59.238.4 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

27.59.238.4 is shopping around to Administrators and at Teahouse to get the UPE/COI tag permanently removed from Renu Raj by accusing GermanKity of vandalism. At Teahouse, Germankity has raised the possibility that 27.59.238.4 is an IP for User:Idhachu, the editor who created the article originally, subsequently blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article. It should probably go to AFD though. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renu Raj. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking for some adviceEdit

Hi Rosguill, thanks for your comment at WP:RFP/NPR: [19]. I'd like to learn from this. Can you talk me through what you were seeing that led you to the conclusion that Draft:Marvin Ramirez and Peyman Esmaeili had UPE issues? Many thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Laplorfill, both articles were created by a new account with no edits to other topics, primarily in a single edit, which indicates that the text may have been copied from somewhere else (common for PR work, although by itself not a conclusive piece of evidence). In the case of Peyman Esmaeili, the article's text comes off as rather promotional, and is primarily supported by citations to interviews, which tend to be low quality sources. For Draft:Marvin Ramirez, the article creator's user name, "Talentoxtremo1", suggests a promotional talent agency ("Extreme Talent" in Spanish). signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, Rosguill, that's extremely helpful. I'll watch out carefully for patterns like this in the future. Laplorfill (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

CongratulationsEdit

  Smiley Award
For your work reviewing redirects. 😀 Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Aşure for youEdit

  Aşure for you
Eat this once and you will never quit eating it. Keep up the good work! V. E. (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Garrett Reynolds (BMX riders)Edit

Hello, could you help me to maintain this article by giving it a linguistic review--OaxacaGenius (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

OaxacaGenius, the prose looks ok to me as far as grammar and neutrality are concerned. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination DriveEdit

Hello Rosguill:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 600 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Thoughts?Edit

Although seemingly quixotic and a bit of a stretch, what are your thoughts on editors seeking NPR be made to pass through NPP academy before granting NPR rights? Celestina007 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I think it would be excessive, as many editors are able to learn how to do new page reviews without formal instruction. I think that the current system of trial runs with supervision is sufficient. signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
That is infact true, not to talk of the amount of pressure it would put on brilliant tutors like yourself. You are correct when you say overtime editors learn how to do new page reviewing but what I have discovered is self taught editors who think they know, in actuality do not know and are oblivious of the fact that they do not know. In-fact that was me in 2019, I had expressly told my tutor that I already knew 90% of new page reviewing, during the course of my NPP I had an epiphany that I barely knew 50% about new page reviewing. The Essence of NPP academy can never be emphasized enough. I however agree with you that the trial runs are sufficient. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
Hi There, was just wondering as to why the Article (Sheena Belarmino) was deleted? Hope you can enlighten me so I can improve. Thanks Jasper Grantus (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Jasper Grantus, It looks like an IP editor converted the page to a redirect with an edit summary pointing to an irrelevant essay. I restored the article. signed, Rosguill talk 07:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You been troutedEdit

  Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Adopt to other languagesEdit

Dear Rosguill,

Long time no talk, I hope your are fine. I would have a(nother) question:

I added this paragraph (I saw this interesting guy/character in Narcos 3): Rosso José Serrano / Public image and recognition

And I would like to add this in the Spanish article as well by using Google Translate and DeepL for the text, keeping the English references and add 1-2 Spanish references. Would that be OK?

Thank you and have a great Sunday! --F.Blaubiget (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: I added his appearance in Narcos already: ES

F.Blaubiget, the use of machine translation is discouraged unless you have high proficiency in the output language (WP:MACHINETRANSLATION). signed, Rosguill talk 06:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Rosguill, didn´t know that. Best wishes! --F.Blaubiget (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RetrospectiveEdit

Hello Rosguill,

Prior to your ANI close, I made this entry so that the article could be created by a neutral. I however noted that Celestina007 removed the entry with the summary; Editor who put that there is tbanned from anything related to that article. Attempt to put back there any you’d be in violation of your tban. I want to confirm if the TBAN can be applied retrospectively or this is a gravedancy attempt at baiting me. Kind regards, Princess of Ara(talk) 06:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Princess of Ara, Celestina007 was allowed, if not required, to remove that entry. I don't consider that to be a retroactive application of the topic ban, but the topic ban does prevent you from contesting the edit further. signed, Rosguill talk 06:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess. Thank you for the clarification! Princess of Ara(talk) 06:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did you close my discussion ?Edit

Why are all my discussions being closed at the AN and tea house. Why are you all trying to hide it under the carpet what an editor did? Positiveilluminati (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Positiveilluminati, I closed the teahouse discussion per WP:FORUMSHOP, as we want to avoid having two parallel discussions about the same topic at once. I had nothing to do with the decision to close the AN discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Help! Accidentally accepted an existing article in the main space(duplicate article)Edit

Dear Rosguill,

I accidentally accepted a duplicate article named Smartless (Podcast), the existing article is under the name SmartLess. I did an AfD on the accepted article, is there a way to move the page back to the draft space and decline? This is my first blunder using AfC, I will be careful with this next time, I will pause that and continue my NPP, and then resume AfC again. Sorry for the trouble.

QuantumRealm (meowpawtrack) 06:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, the problem is resolved! ^_^ QuantumRealm (meowpawtrack) 12:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Haytor Granite TramwayEdit

Hi, I noticed that you've just marked the Haytor Granite Tramway as reviewed. I'm a bit puzzled, I thought reviewing was for new articles, and this one has been in existence since 7 January 2007‎. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield, I believe what happened is that I reviewed the redirect created at Heytor Granite Tramway, which was created recently; when you clicked the notification, it probably took you straight past the redirect and to the article. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for getting back to me. I should have spotted that, I created the redirect! Actually, I didn't realise that redirects were subject to review. Best Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 799 article againEdit

A couple of years ago, you kindly reviewed Pan Am Flight 799 and helped the process of improving it to your satisfaction, and I am lastingly grateful for the expert review. The article continues to show the notice "This article is a rough translation from Russian" asking for help improving the translation. That was definitely true in November 2018, when someone apparently created the page by machine-translating from ru.wikipedia.org, but, in the opinion of this native English speaker, it seems to me it's been extensively copyedited, and for the last couple of years has been idiomatic and smoothly readable. If you are free, would you mind lending your expert scrutiny again, on that question? Thank you.

Hey IP, I agree that the tag isn't necessary anymore and have gone ahead and removed it. signed, Rosguill talk 06:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You been trouted againEdit

  Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.


 


Crunch, crunch!

Here is some chips to go with your fish!

How many pages do you review!? You must be getting tired of reviewing all of those pages, do you? Sorry if this offends you. Angelgreat (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Angelgreat, I mostly review redirects these days, so it's just become a routine to spend a half hour or so going through a day's worth of backlog each day. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

collective consensus - HellenismEdit

Hello, how is it possible to reach a "collective consensus" with colonizers trying to control the narrative on a topic? Stop redirecting everything topic to Hellenism. KLEOPATROS7 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

KLEOPATROS7, well, we're certainly not going to get anywhere without a consensus. You can read up on how we make decisions on Wikipedia at WP:CONSENSUS. But repeatedly creating content forks and ignoring other editors' concerns is likely going to end with you losing your editing permissions. Please engage constructively with other editors and try to work towards a solution. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I will try my best here. KLEOPATROS7 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The Who Tour 1982Edit

Hi, I was searching for an article on this tour and was surprised to see it redirected a couple of months ago. Was there any discussion of this anywhere other than through edit summaries? This was billed as their "Farewell Tour" and received a lot of press coverage, and was a financial success. If I can find the sources to meet WP:NTOUR (I'm sure they are out there) would there be any objection to turning it back into an article? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree, if you can find solid sources you'll see no objection from me. signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

NPP schoolEdit

Hi Rosguill. I was interested in joining the NPP school and I was wondering if you would be willing to take me on as a student. I have been a Wikipedian since 2018 and I've written a few articles, but the NPP process looks pretty complicated and nuanced, so I think that the NPP school would be a useful learning experience. I've graudated CVUA, so I know about a bit about the speedy deletion criteria (although I don't know how important that would be in new page reviewing - maybe G11s?) I'm in UTC-5 so I don't think timezone should be too much of an issue. Clovermoss (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Clovermoss, I'd normally be happy to help, but this isn't a great time for me, and I don't expect to be more free for the next few months. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright. I'll look for another trainer, then. Clovermoss (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_15#South_American_Schools_GamesEdit

Help me create the article instead of deleting the pages. They all exist and the matches are not unreal.

hi, about this :

http://fisuamerica.com/en/tag/pan-american-university-games/

http://fisuamerica.com/en/tag/fisu-america-games/

When the goal is to encourage article creation, the best idea is to not create a redirect, per Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting #10. Please don't remove RfD tags while discussion is ongoing. signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk about redirecting. When I am creating an article, then the discussion about deleting it is irrelevant because it is no longer a diversion but an article. At the end of each article whose article was not created, you can delete the tag. In addition, all of them can be redirected to sports in the Americas and there are no problems.

I would suggest that you leave these comments at the deletion discussion so that other editors can see them and the articles don't get deleted by accident. signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Pan American University Games for deletionEdit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pan American University Games 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/Pan American University Games 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.

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Pan American University GamesEdit

This user seems to be looking for nonsense excuses to delete the article. It had already bothered me in related articles. You are also discouraging me from working because I seem to be wasting my time. The article is well known and there are many corresponding articles. Asia will also start regional student competitions from 2022. Despite being new, there are enough resources and based on the principle of the snowball, there is no need to continue the discussion because the result is clear. --Hao Xia Xia (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


I'm not really interested in getting involved in the discussion, but based on what I've seen so far the sources provided are sorely lacking. The other articles you've linked here appear to be cited to more of the same. I wouldn't be surprised if you can find better coverage in other languages, but what I've been able to find in English isn't enough to justify an article. signed, Rosguill talk 04:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


This user's argument from the beginning was that these competitions are irrelevant to Panam Sport:

http://www.badmintonpanam.org/badminton-will-be-part-of-fisu-america-games-2020/

You can see that it is also reflected in official sites such as the official badminton site of the Americas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hao Xia Xia (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry, but these sources appear to be press releases that are affiliated with the organizations in question, and thus do not count towards notability. What we're looking for is either in-depth newspaper/magazine coverage (e.g. [20]), or ideally coverage in peer-reviewed academic journals discussing the history and importance of these events. signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these competitions are newly established. The second period has been postponed due to Corona. Both hosts were in South America, so 90% of the sources will be in Portuguese or Spanish. It may not be very realistic to want to have multiple sources in the Academy journals during the same period. Sports competitions are not usually covered in journal articles. Except for the Olympics. In your opinion, should all other articles for student competitions be removed? I do not think there is such a strictness for articles on Wikipedia. The only reason for this behavior is the user's (Sportsfan 1234) insistence on confronting me. And that really bothers me. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELL_Student_Games

Baltic student competitions (only 5 countries) also have articles. Is this article famous? Probably not. If we want to be so strict, it seems we have to delete more than a few million articles.Hao Xia Xia (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

requestEdit

Hi again , I correct the redirects. Please close the discussion. I also expressed my views on the article(Pan American University Games). I suggest clicking the resource improvement tag instead of deleting it. If the decision is deleted, please do not delete it and move to the following path:

from Pan American University Games to:

Sport in South America or World University Games. thank you.Hao Xia Xia (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

i can create 4 article but I think it will take a long time again to discuss credible sources as well as fame. Currently I have other priorities for working on Wikipedia. thanks again.Hao Xia Xia (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The RfD will continue until it is closed by an uninvolved editor. Regarding your arguments in the section above, if sources are truly nonexistent then those articles should be taken down as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:TOOSOON, as you are not the first person to raise these arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

sourceEdit

I am find source for all of them:

[1][2][3]

[4][5][6]


[7]

Hao Xia Xia (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


https://www.cubapostal.com/cgi-local/home.cgi?mode=view_detail&id=965  : Latin American University Games


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0041134516309393  : Latin American Transplant Games (Academic Journal)

I'm sorry, these sources don't look like the right kind to me. The academic sources do not appear to provide any significant coverage of the games, they just happen to use participants in the games as a sample population. The news sources, meanwhile, do not appear reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

come recuperare la pagina di Wikipedia cancellataEdit

ciao rosguill, voglio sapere che come recuperare la pagina di wikipedia cancellata? il nome della pagina è "sangramsingh thakur" grazie. --ForArtist (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

ForArtist, questo articolo è stato cancellata sopra AfD; è necessario provedere citazioni migliori che loro chi anno stato nella ultima versione, che soddisfarono con WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 15:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

se stai stabilendo la pagina, ti fornirò fonti affidabili o mi farò sapere come fornirti.--ForArtist (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

NPP rightEdit

Hi Rosguill, you gave me the NPP flag a month ago on a temporary basis, although I wasn't as active as I'd have liked (having been on holiday for two weeks!) hopefully I've demonstrated sufficient competence in NPP and you'd be happy to make the right permanent? Thanks in advance! ninety:one 10:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ninetyone, your track record looks good,   Done signed, Rosguill talk 16:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! ninety:one 10:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Another tryEdit

Rosguill, do you think you could give me another shot at this...? I was under a lot of medical treatment for the past few months, and Wikipedia had to take a back seat, unfortunately. My right hand was literally non-functional for an extended period of time. - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

AppleBsTime, I just extended it for another month. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It feels so good to be able to type again, even if a little stiff! - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)