Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Dachau

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 13#Dachau: Note that the status quo did not, in fact, have Dachau pointing to the concentration camp. Dachau, Bavaria had been at the bare title for years until it was moved recently in an apparently unilateral action. That is why I think running a WP:DABTEST for a month or more and revisiting the discussion when we have data is the ideal way to go. Because once you declare a primary topic, it is impossible to collect outgoing pageview statistics in an unbiased manner. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

King of Hearts, I see, my mistake on the prior consensus. I still think that the discussion's overall consensus was weakly for maintaining a redirect to the concentration camp, however. signed, Rosguill talk 23:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, but would you object to temporarily retargeting Dachau to Dachau (disambiguation) for a month? At the end of that period, if I'm satisfied that Dachau concentration camp is the primary topic, then I'll restore the redirect there; if I still disagree, then I intend to file an RM (Dachau (disambiguation) → Dachau) armed with this data, defaulting to restoring the redirect to the concentration camp in case of no consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, as much as I don't personally have a problem with that proposal, I feel like that would be supervoting over the opinions of the other editors involved in the discussion. If you can bring them around, I'd have no further objection. signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I will go ahead and be WP:BOLD then. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and if the town was at the base page for over 15 years with no complaints then an extra month isn't going to cause significant inconvenience for readers. In these matters, consensus is a judgment on the desired permanent state of affairs, and I wouldn't classify a temporary test to be against the spirit of it. In fact, the very act of conducting a DABTEST on any disambiguation page is technically a violation of the sitewide consensus at MOS:DABPIPE, but we accept it as a necessary evil for a greater purpose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, fair enough. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, if after a week or so, Dachau concentration camp is very obviously ahead, then the redirect can be restored even earlier. The beauty of this is that we minimize reader inconvenience when it is most severe, but can run the test for the full duration when it is not so clear that readers are being inconvenienced at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, I am sorry but to me this does seem like an attempt to circumvent the consensus, which did not accept your proposal for a dabtest. I am restoring the redirect per Rosguill's closure. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe I made the suggestion at the very end, and it simply wasn't discussed by anyone else, so I wouldn't say there was a consensus against my proposal. If Dachau concentration camp is really the primary topic, what harm does waiting an additional week to a month cause? If the data ultimately shows that readers are actually split 50/50 between the two topics, wouldn't you want to disambiguate as well? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, dabtest works quite well if pageviews are relatively constant, or at least at a consistent ratio. Unfortunately, toolforge shows that's not the case with this article. Dachau concentration camp has high spikes in views such that if you did the analysis now, it would significantly underestimate the long-run average pageviews for the concentration camp, versus doing such an analysis in January 2020 would have overestimated it. Therefore, I'm not convinced the test you propose is all that helpful in this case. (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

.

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Atsme Talk 📧 00:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hi. Since I started patrolling new pages I have been looking at the pages and if there is a major issue, such as no references, I've tagged accordingly but not marked the page as "reviewed". Where the issue is minor I tag and mark as "reviewed". Effectively, I've defined "reviewed" as the article being ok for mainspace. A comment from another editor has made me question this, and that "reviewed" means that a reviewer has looked at the article, and should be marked as "reviewed" no matter what tags are added. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

John B123, your approach is correct. There's often articles that are borderline for notability; it's fair game to tag these and not mark them reviewed, or simply watchlist them and leave them to the next reviewer, especially if the articles are about subjects that you're not familiar with. That having been said, if you've looked for sources online, came up empty handed, and don't have reason to believe that you may have missed something, you should proceed to AfD. An exception would be if the article was recently created (< 24 hours ago), in which case I'll often put a notability tag instead of going straight to deletion processes if notability is the only concern. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and advice. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks, Bhi ... Playlikeastar (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful close at the Fox News RFC. I know it was not easy. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 from me - a belated thank-you to you, and your colleagues, for closing the discussion—and for correcting misrepresentations of the close. MastCell Talk 02:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

BFM Lyon Ado

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of Shopping (TV channel); they continue to create 90% infobox articles for French channels which do not justify articles. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, sorry, I don't have time to look into this right now. Consider asking a different admin for help or writing a report at ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 03:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem, more just to make you aware than anything. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello, I was wondering how much time does it take a new page to be patrolled? Kabid1026 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Kabid1026 right now the backlog is around 3-4 months for articles, although many reviewers choose to sort the articles by topic and thus may review some newer articles earlier (there's also a fair amount of reviewers who patrol from the front of the queue so that they can catch vandalism). Ensuring that articles you write are well-written and well-sourced will also speed up their review, as articles that don't clearly meet notability guidelines are more difficult to review and thus may be skipped over by editors short on time or who aren't familiar with the subject matter. As an added note, barnstars are supposed to be awarded for outstanding work; awarding one just to ask a question is not particularly appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Default action for WP:T

In my opinion, a "no consensus" close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 23#Wikipedia:T should result in restoring it to its long-standing target of Wikipedia:Tutorial (historical), which was previously at Wikipedia:Tutorial. Note that the current target was only implemented in April 2020 without any consensus supporting the change. (Wikipedia talk:Introduction (historical)#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction had a consensus to retarget WP:Introduction and WP:Tutorial which are not the same thing, and WP:T was discussed only minimally with no firm decisions made.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

King of Hearts, good point, I've gone ahead and made that change. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Basim zulfkar

Hi I’ve run across this page at NPP. It seems to be a user talk page that’s mistakenly been moved into mainspace. I don’t know what to do to move it back. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, taken care of. For future reference, in situations like this, tag whatever's at the user talk page for G6 speedy deletion and make sure the explanation mentions the page in mainspace too so that the admin responding to the issue can fix that too. signed, Rosguill talk 04:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I did that but speedy deletion was declined. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Mccapra, from what I saw in the page history, it looked like you tagged Basim zulfkar, in mainspace, rather than the redirect that was left behind in user space. signed, Rosguill talk 12:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes that’s right I did. I’ll try to remember the right steps if I encounter this again. Thank you. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for IPhone 9

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IPhone 9. 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.Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect removal

Hello! I started reviewing articles in the new pages feed (the oldest) and came across Trey Azagthoth. You have turned it to redirect in January and today your edit was undone by an IP user. After checking the history I have noticed the article was actually a redirect back in 2016 but was recreated this year again. Twice already. I have checked all the sources and even turned some into external links as they are primary - the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. I wanted to ask you as I am a new reviewer - what should I do in such cases - report to ANI or request page protection? Will appreciate you help and advice. Best,Less Unless (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, given the time elapsed between the recreations, and that the IPs are not obviously the same/related (mind you, I'm not a CU so that's just a guess based on looking at the numbers and their editing histories), I don't think there's need for any special actions other than restoring the redirect. If it were a more persistent edit war, either requesting page protection or reporting the editor(s) for edit warring would be appropriate, depending on the specifics of the editors involved and the timing. If it becomes an intractable issue with significant levels of disruption over a long period of time despite having tried other remedies, only then is ANI necessary. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill thank you! So should I restore it or you will? Sorry for being annoying)Less Unless (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Less Unless, I haven't looked at the new draft and was going off of your assertion that it's still not notable. I usually avoid reinstating my own decisions to convert to redirect unless the article has significant problems other than just being non-notable. That way I avoid getting sucked into a potentially exhausting edit war, and the editor reinstating the article also gets to see that multiple editors disagree with them, not just one editor that's decided their word is law. I'm more inclined to step in if warring continues after multiple editors have weighed in. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Sounds very sensible! I will review the article once again and AFD it in case my opinion doesn't change. Thank you for your time. Best,Less Unless (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Less Unless, looks like another editor beat you to it. While doing a WP:BEFORE as if you were going to take it to AfD is a good idea, I'd say it doesn't need to be taken to AfD unless there's an active edit war over it. My usual procedure for scenarios like this is that if I'm going back and forth with one other editor in the span of a week, AfD is an option. If multiple new page reviewers have already weighed in such that we can say that there's a consensus to redirect, I usually bring it up on the talk page, point out the current balance of opinion, and then tell the editor that keeps recreating the article that if they still feel like they need a proper hearing, we can go to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 15:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin warning requested

Hi Rosguill can I ask for an admin eye to be cast over User:202.58.86.64? Rahmat Mohamad was created in March and I came across it at New Page Review on 28 July. At this stage it was a gigantic wall of text so I cut out the unsourced sections, corrected the English mistakes, trimmed the lede and marked it as reviewed. [1]. The next day user:202.58.86.64 reverted everything I’d done. I went to their talk page to explain why I’d removed material and asking them to provide sources or I’d remove it again. On 31 July I left them a following note to say that as they’d not provided any sources I was reverting their reverts and restoring my ‘clean’ version. A few hours ago they undid my revisions again, restoring masses of unsourced junk. The article is now as they left it. As they’re not listening to me I think they need to hear from someone with some authority. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, I restored your version and left warnings on the talk pages of the IPs involved. I'm not sure it will accomplish much, as I suspect that they may not be reading their talk page. If disruption continues, a partial block from the page in question will hopefully put an end to it, although I'm a bit worried that it may not work if they can just hop to another IP. I'd rather not apply page protection to an article in such a poor state, but that unfortunately may be the only solution. signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree. I thought the article was pretty borderline anyway in terms of notability but had the capacity to improve perhaps. I did wonder if I’d made a mistake and should perhaps have sent it to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Mccapra, I didn't review the article's notability. It is basically a resume, however, and given that at least one editor appears to have an interest in promoting the subject, sending it to draft on COI grounds may be appropriate if you think there's a chance the subject is notable. signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks yes if they revert again I may do that (though I doubt it will be long before it moves back into mainspace....). Mccapra (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Marvel Animated Universe

Can you block this user Aaa11769[1] from editing the Marvel Animated Universe page? because he is vandalizing and adding "Fan-term" even though it's official and confirmed it's the official name.

NoobMaster01, the page in question has been protected and Aaa11769 appears to now be engaging on the talk page, so I don't think there's anything left for me to do at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aaa11769&action=edit&redlink=1

That page is reverted. Can you change it back to the previous version because they confirmed it's official.

NoobMaster01, there appears to be a consensus to keep it as is, with multiple different editors agreeing that the page should be a redirect. You need to convince the others otherwise on the talk page before attempting to reinstate your edits. Repeated attempts to make edits that circumvent the consensus is tantamount to edit warring, and will result in a loss of your editing privileges. signed, Rosguill talk 16:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That consensus was 9 years ago and that information was wrong at that time. Now, it's official and they confirmed it.

Nu, convincing me is irrelevant. You need to convince the other editors that are actively editing the article. I'm not going to do anything as an admin unless there's a clear consensus for it. signed, Rosguill talk 16:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Axcient

Draft:Axcient, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Axcient and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Axcient during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Article

i'm sorry Rosguill but could you please bring back my Gabi DeMartino article? i mean what was the problem this time? i added all the references now, this isn't fair at all! --User:Gabriella Grande (talk) 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gabriella Grande, I didn't do anything to the article, I just approved the redirect that was created after the article was removed. Looking through the article's history, it looks like multiple experienced editors have objected to the article's creation. From looking at the article itself, my guess is that it falls afoul of WP:MUSICBIO; we generally do not create articles about members of musical groups unless the member has had a career outside that group that would be notable independent of the group in question. If you would like to pursue this further, I would suggest starting a discussion at Talk:Gabi DeMartino or Talk:Niki and Gabi and pinging the relevant editors to it. signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, i'm really sorry if i was rude in my message, but i got mad cause i spent a lot of time on this article, and Gabi has a solo career outside the group, she released two albums and many singles, there are a lot of references, so i don't know if that made sense, but it would be nice if the article was up again, i'm really sorry.
Gabriella Grande, like I said, take it up with the editors that actually objected to the article. Start a discussion and identify 3 citations to articles in independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage of DeMartino that aren't covering her in the context of Niki and Gabi. If you can do that, they should be more than willing to restore the article. signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, sadly they didn't answer, but thank you so much for being nice!
Gabriella Grande, I would suggest pinging them by using {{ping|TheirUsername}}. Don't forget to sign your message with four tildes ~~~~ or it won't fire. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, I've tried it now, hopefully they'll answer, thank you so much! Gabriella Grande (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi. May I ask why did you "add the confusing" template to Lanuza, Spain. Is it a copy edit/poor English issue? Or another different issue altogether? Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Asqueladd, I actually went ahead and fixed the issue myself. The original copy had some poor word choices that made the article seem self-contradictory vis-a-vis the village's planned destruction and reestablishment. Upon looking at the cited source, however, I found enough information to clear it up myself. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Could "reincorporated" be somewhat idiomatic/misleading (as it may well mean "incorporate again", and it is not sourced to be the case)? Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Asqueladd, fair point. I think it's ok either way, but replacing the word with "incorporated" is less ambiguous. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

History of the Baloch people

Hello rosguill page called History of Baloch people, was attacked by Iranian vandalists, I want to restore and improve again, only with your help ...?

Habir As (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Habir As (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please Habir As (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Habir As, if you want to improve our coverage of this subject, you should follow my advice and make improvements to the History section of Baloch people. If it becomes long enough that it's taking up an unjustifiably long portion of the article, then it can be split to a new article. As a side note, I'm not sure who you're accusing of being an Iranian vandal, but I doubt it's called for. Stick to discussing article content, don't cast aspersions about other editors. signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I promise a good edit, with your help ... Habir As (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Habir As, just work on the existing article. We don't need a WP:CFORK. signed, Rosguill talk 23:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Lionel Barnett Abrahams

Hi, Sorry to bother you again. Could you have a look at the new article Lionel Barnett Abrahams. In my view it gives no indication of notability of Abrahams, although it says he's " notable for his work in India". On this basis I tagged it for speedy deletion {{db-person}} : does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This was rejected on the grounds that the subject has an entry in the ODNB. Whilst the ODNB would be a strong indicator of notability in a full article, it is not conclusive proof (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria), nor do I think it overrides the need to show why an individual is notable. This rejection sets a precedent that articles such as "X is notable because they have an entry in the ODNB" is an acceptable article without specifying why they are notable. I'm not sure how to proceed on this one so your advice would be appreciated. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

John B123, I would agree with whoever declined the speedy that {{db-person}}. An ODNB entry may not be enough to establish notability on its own, but it's certainly a credible indication of importance (which is a much, much lower bar than notability; I'm not worried about this setting any new precedent with respect to notability guidelines). A7 speedy deletion should be reserved for articles that truly don't have the slightest whiff of notability, a la John Gregory is a school teacher at the Frederick Douglass Elementary School in Brainville, Mass with only primary sources as citations. Honestly, an ODNB entry would probably push me to go straight to AfD rather than trying PROD, and unless I had access to the entry and could establish that there was very little coverage to work with there, I would consider just tagging it for notability and moving on. signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for having a look. --John B123 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Page Text

Hi Rosguill, you suggested that a page I was writing on Peter Earl be deleted a while back, as it had insufficient interest or source material. I was wondering whether there is any way I can still find the text I wrote before deletion so I can edit it and include some new articles I’ve found. Many thanks! Rich6500 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Rich6500Rich6500 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, you can find the restored text at Draft:Peter Earl signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you! Rich6500 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Rich6500Rich6500 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Patrol

Hello. Please patrol the article - Sergey Albertovich Smirnov. Thank. Namerst (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Namerst, there's quite a long backlog for new page reviews, please be patient. signed, Rosguill talk 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dalais Woods

Would you mind taking a look at the content, sources, and editor history of the biography Dalais Woods? I get the feeling that it is too self-promotional for Wikipedia, but I thought an administrator would know for sure. - AppleBsTime (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

AppleBsTime, yeah, its provided sources are not sufficiently reliable or significant, and the cited chart is a promotional website. You could either proceed to AfD, or given that some of the editors have a clear COI, draftify it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wa 3%

You keep reverting to factually incorrect statements. signed, TheRogueLibertarian talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

TheRogueLibertarian, if you make legal threats like this one, you're going to find your stay on this website incredibly short. Respect our policies or find another hobby. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You might look up the word irony, you just threatened me. signed, TheRogueLibertarian talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Jamie's Quick & Easy Food

What do I need to do to get the page from being redirected? Does it need more citations? Davidsmith2015 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Davidsmith2015, it needs citations to independent secondary sources, such as episode reviews or retrospectives about its cultural impact. The relevant rules are summarized here. signed, Rosguill talk 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Cover Art Help

Hello, Rosguill, could you add this [[2]] cover art picture to the Individual (EP) article?, i wish i could but my common account is blocked from adding picture so please help if you don't mind! thanks! Gabriella Grande (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Gabriella Grande, I can't commit to helping at this moment, but the issue here is likely due to our rules regarding non-free image use. Commons is not going to accept such an image because it's copyrighted and Commons is only for free-use and Creative Commons content. However, album covers for infoboxes are allowed on Wikipedia itself, so you can upload them here. You should be able to add the image by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover. signed, Rosguill talk 01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, thank you so much! Gabriella Grande (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Biman Bandar metro station

Hello. I want to discuss regarding this. I made the "controversial move request" move request last year because-

  1. I was new back then. I wasn't bold enough.
  2. The official website of Kolkata Metro had both older and new data/maps, which created confusion.

Actually there's no such controversial thing here. Later I forgot about the renaming of the article. Here are the sources.

  • 8 May 2014 data - In the proposed station tables its mentioned, Location = Biman Bandar (it means Airport in English) and Name of station = Jai Hind. Check the 3rd map, its written Jai Hind (6.25 km). In some areas Biman Bandar was also used.
  • 5 Aug 2019 data - In the left yellow portion of map, you will find Biman Bandar mentioned in a box.

Jai Hind name isn't used anymore. The whole Noapara-Barasat (red line/line 4) stations were renamed. Compare the old and new version. I hope this helps. ❯❯❯   S A H A 14:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill OK. ❯❯❯   S A H A 16:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Tea table

Given that Tea table has substantial edit history as an article in its own right about the geological meaning I'd suggest moving the history to Tea table (geology) and then the Tea table (furniture) redirect could be moved to the base name. Note for example on Commons, Commons:Category:Tea tables is about the furniture and Commons:Category:Tea tables (geology) is about the rock formation so we could do the same here. I'd then put the RFD notice on the newer redirect at the base name, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, wouldn't that make it harder to track down the correct history? I would anticipate that attribution messages would just refer to Tea table, rather than Tea table (geology); these moves would make that harder to find. Although looking more closely now, I see that it doesn't appear that any content was actually merged. Assuming I'm correct about the latter, your suggestion seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes possibly be I'm not sure that that's worth having the edit history in the wrong place especially since its quite plausible that an article on the furniture might be created at this title though I suppose if that happens then a move could happen, if you don't think its worth it feel free not to move it. There doesn't appear to be any content actually merged given that the Table (furniture) article was last edited in July but I was talking about the edit history its self being redirected to the wrong place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale, hm, in that case I think it's best to leave it be for now, but maybe leave a message on the talk page for Tea table explaining the situation so that we can take the appropriate actions if and when an article is created there. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The talk page already links to the RFD (the only contents on the page) so I don't think another message is needed but otherwise we can just leave as is until someone creates another article, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your input on my talk page. But it's editors like that which is why I'm still debating coming back. Just dipping my toe in the waters for now... Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, yeah I wouldn't blame you, that was particularly harsh. Sorry you had to deal with that. signed, Rosguill talk 00:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on User talk:Pulak Chakraborty

I messed up. I did not mean to ping you :\ Aasim 05:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Asking

What i needed to become New page reviewer --VETTI PAIYAN-(talk) 10:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Vettipaiyan, there's a minimum requirement of 500 edits to mainspace and at least 90 days of age on the account. However, it's probably better to understand that minimum as a minimum to have your request reviewed, not as a minimum for actually conferring the permissions. New page reviewers are expected to have a strong understanding of a wide range of policies and guidelines, particularly notability, original research, neutrality, copyright and BLPs, as well as being familiar with standard article creation and deletion procedures. This knowledge can be demonstrated by a track record of thoughtful participation at WP:AfD, successful speedy-deletion and WP:PROD tagging, article creations, or ideally a combination of all three. For editors who have the right attitude and mentality, but don't quite have the skills yet, we also offer the WP:NPPSCHOOL to learn the ropes with a tutor. signed, Rosguill talk 14:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank You --VETTI PAIYAN-(talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pestminster, and have marked it as unpatrolled. 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 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Artophorion, and have marked it as unpatrolled. 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 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, I found references calling that scandal Pestminster online, and Artophorion is mentioned halfway down the page of the other. signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had reviewed them, and then unreviewed my own review. Didn't realize I had already done that and then you reviewed them in the interim. Onel5969 TT me 17:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please desist from offensive name calling

I may be autistic but that is no reason to call me offensive names on talk-pages. I am not interested in sourcing some policy breach by you, but ask you please desist from calling me "daft"[3], call my judgement "absurd" [4] or tell me to "Get off your high horse"[5]. The fact that you are much more knowledgeable than I about policy here means there is absolutely zero need for you to use offensive names to get your way. Thank you in advance. You have made the inference that I am an idiot who doesn’t know how to edit on WP - this is hurtful and I will take that forward as self-doubt. CatCafe (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, quite frankly, given your repeated accusations that I have engaged in disruptive editing when I have done nothing of the sort and the multiple times that you have claimed that I intended the exact opposite of what I had written, even after I explicitly stated my position, it's you who owe me an apology. But ultimately we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to swap pleasantries; if you can engage in civil discussion in order to sort out our disagreements about article content, I'll more than happily return the favor. I do still think that at this point WP:DRN may be a more useful way to make progress towards working out our primary remaining disagreement, which I believe is about the question of whether to include the Toronto Star column as a source. signed, Rosguill talk 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I never asked for your apology, so please don't infer I want one. If you can't move forward without committing to not using derogatory name calling then so be it - that's all I asked for as doing such would show maturity. As you have now said "it's you who owe me an apology", then I sincerely offer one, as your feelings must be hurt. I apologise. CatCafe (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
CatCafe, I already said that I would engage in civil discussion. If you want to dispute any of our open disagreements further, start a thread at DRN. signed, Rosguill talk 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
That's great that you are committed to refrain from calling other editors derogatory names. And what would also be appreciated is you finding a bunch of good secondary sources for the Yasmine Mohammed page so the 'prim source' tag can be removed. Not forgetting that it you put the tag up then deleted a bunch of secondary sources you didn't agree with to further compound the need for more sources on the page . Adding those secondary's and removing the tag would be seen as good faith on your part and improve the encyclopaedia. I'm no longer working on the page. Regards, CatCafe (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
CatCafe, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the underlying problem. The overreliance on primary sources isn't something I determined by counting up the secondary sources in the article as compared to the number of primary sources, it was due to large swathes of the article with significant, contentious claims relying solely on primary sources. Moreover, the sources I removed, while some were secondary with respect to their main topics, were not secondary with respect to Mohammed (with the exception of The Post Millennial, which is unfortunately unreliable (RSP entry) and thus cannot be used to support BLP content). My edits in no way moved the article further away from addressing its primary source problem. Adding more sources to support the already well-supported claims doesn't help anything, it's actually a form of WP:REFBOMBING and is generally considered to make things worse as it can impede verifiability. I went through several pages of Google search results just now and couldn't find any additional secondary coverage other than some book reviews, which don't help support the claims about Mohammed's early life which are the crux of the issue. And finally, ensuring that articles are neutral, verifiable, and BLP-compliant is improving the encyclopedia. signed, Rosguill talk 01:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

NPP school

I have gone through topics like notability guidelines, speedy deletion and others in which i also have passion and interest in this NPP. Please i would like to be a student in NPP/S. I can't work with other due to they are not near my timezone. Tbiw (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Tbiw, from looking through your recent contributions, I'm seeing a lot of articles that have significant issues with notability, including articles that you've been working on as recently as a few weeks ago. I think it would be premature to do NPP tutoring at this time. Try building up experience by observing (and eventually participating in) AfD discussions, or see if someone listed at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is willing to tutor you in article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

New set of eyes

Hi. Hate to bug you, but would you mind taking a look at User:I'm Aya Syameimaru! contributions? They seem to have created a bunch of redirects, but the target pages don't mention the redirect subject. I was going through their work, and nominated 4 I came across for deletion, but there were others which were okay. But the remaining 20 or so don't appear to mention the redirect subject. And sorry I missed the teleconference today, seems to have gone well. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, looking through the redirects, while there's no mention at the target articles, they all appear to be nominally correct in that the Gridino is a village in Nizhny-Novgorodsky Oblast, cut&paste is an electronic music subgenre, etc. I honestly never feel like I know what to do in cases like this, and usually decide whether or not to nominate for RfD based on the likelihood of the search term obscuring some other subject.
As for the group editing session, I barely made it myself, I think Barkeep was holding down the fort for most of it. People seemed pretty happy with how it went. signed, Rosguill talk 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. At RDF, the usual criteria is that it be mentioned in the target. But I feel like you do, these are probably correct, but no mention. Maybe a note on the editor's talkpage asking him to add it in somewhere on the target?Onel5969 TT me 00:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to meet you Lovesexigirl (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

AirDee

Hi, I have noted your discussion to delete a page regarding non-performing personnel due to notability and the sources being from interviews. Please note there is by default limited coverage with producers especially in the South African music scene as they are often in the background but the subject of the article is a prominent figure but the credit ostensibly goes to the artists he produces for.

Thank you Pen Bull (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Replied at the AfD discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

New pages patrol training

Hi, I'm approaching you to ask whether you'd be willing to give me some training on New Page Patrolling. I enjoyed the process of going through the CVUA training under Girth Summit, and I learned a huge amount about how things worked here, so I'm now thinking about branching our and finding additional ways to support the project. I was requested to Barkeep49 for this training, but unfortunately (s)he don't have time at the moment to take a new student. I also have served as a NPR for 3 months from 27 October 2019 to 27 January 2020, you also could check my Patrol and Page Curation logs. After, if you feel that training is not necessary then with your suggestion I could work on this. Thank you very much in advance for your time. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

ZI Jony, was there a particular reason you didn't reapply for the permission following the end of the trial run (or did I miss the reapplication in your edit history)? Looking at your AfD record and the last few reviews you did, you would probably have the permission conferred if you asked for it. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, actually I'm working several projects, and I was unable to full focus on that time. Assign user rights are completely depend on admin, if you could conform the permission I'll be happy for that, and I'll get back to you if any help needed. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
ZI Jony, I'll do a full check soon and get back to you on that. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
ZI Jony, alright, I went through your contributions and I think you've done a good enough job to have the permission conferred indefinitely. The one thing that I think you should pay a bit more attention to going forward is to remember to tag articles that have issues. 34th Golden Disc Awards and Cross My Heart and Hope to Die (film) stand a good chance of being notable, but they're short on citations and should thus be marked with either {{refimprove}} or {{notability}}. Super-short articles should be marked with stub tags (User:SD0001/StubSorter is a useful script for that), and articles with bare-url citations should be marked with {{Cleanup bare urls}}. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thank you for your trust and suggestion. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NPP Question

Hey Rosguill, while patroling I have come through this article Squad (2020 film) and seen that you have marked it as Undisclosed paid. Is there anything in the backend you find it which leads to the same? What is the best way to approach as a patroller in this case? - The9Man (Talk) 07:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The course of action depends a bit on what the situation is. In this case, the editor didn't have any warnings on their talk page, so I placed {{uw-paid1}}. The article itself seemed borderline for notability so I left it at that; I generally avoid nominating articles for deletion (or doing preliminary steps like BEFORE) when I've already taken disciplinary steps that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to sabotage the article (removing giant swathes of copyvio also falls in this category) unless I'm extremely confident that it is not notable or that the article needs to be deleted for some other reason. If the editor has already been previously warned, reporting them to WP:COIN is the appropriate next step (although if it was long ago or about a seemingly unconnected topic it may be better to start fresh). If the article is about a potentially-notable subject, is refbombed, or is otherwise difficult to review while also having COI issues, I'll usually send it to draftspace and replace the standard "unsourced" message with one of the messages from User:Rosguill/Draftify templates. I generally avoid doing this if the article has already been moved out of draftspace, as this generally causes an unproductive edit war. signed, Rosguill talk 14:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I guess I have to consider borderline notability subjects in a different way from now on. I was more into AfD and CSD with suspicious articles. - The9Man (Talk) 09:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The9Man, CSD G11 is only appropriate if either the article is blatantly promotional in its content or in some rare cases if it's been repeatedly resubmitted after there's a consensus for it not being notable. As far as AfD is concerned, there's no rule against you taking an article to AfD if you think it's not notable, I just personally try to avoid going after an article in multiple channels at once because it can cause the other editor to get more defensive and uncivil. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect review for 🍜

An editor has asked for a redirect review of 🍜. Because you closed the redirect discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the redirect review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Doubt

Hello, Let me ask you a question, there are two Indian models by one name. One is from Bangalore and one is from Kerala. The model is an actress and model from Kerala. Then how to add extension name.--Chennai Passangai (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Chennai Passangai, I assume that you're asking about disambiguators? Usually disambiguations for people go first by profession, then by name, so in this case you'd have Person's Name (born 19XX) and Person's Name (born 19XY). If they've only done work at the state-level then it may be appropriate to disambiguate as (Bangalore model) and (Kerala model), but if they're known for any work at all outside their home state this scheme will probably be more confusing than helpful. signed, Rosguill talk 14:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Steve Forward?

Hello Rosguil! I don’t understand why Steve Forward’s wiki is considered for deletion. Could it be a mistake? EricaSims (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

EricaSims, you can read my explanation of why I nominated the article for deletion at its deletion discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just read it and I don’t share your vision. Maybe the page needs some correction but seems totally legit to me and not commercial in anyway EricaSims (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

EricaSims, then make a comment at the deletion discussion. The issue isn't that it's promotional, however, but that it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd suggest that you should review the notability guidelines before commenting. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I just dug on his last interviews. In a French article. everything seems to correspond except that it is not a guitarist session but a sound engineer it should be modified EricaSims (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Interviews are generally not considered to be independent coverage unless they're part of a longform piece. Moreover, multiple examples of significant coverage in secondary sources are generally required. If you squint you can maybe consider one or two to count, but I think it falls short. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with Sayyid Asghar Hussain Deobandi

Hii, I was adding references to one of the articles I created and when I checked it says someone else created it in the page information. this diff shows that when I moved it from sandbox to draft, and earlier edits of that particular sandbox are different, and not related to the subject. Can you help me with erasing that earlier history until this move? The same issue is with some other articles which I started editing in the sandbox and then made a move. Hope I get help. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, my understanding is that while you it's possible to add histories from other pages, deleting them is not something we do. Technically WP:REVDEL exists, but that's supposed to just be for significant violations of Wikipedia's policies, not just housekeeping. I wouldn't worry about it, although if you want to avoid it proactively, stick to starting articles in Draft space instead of Sandbox. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing problems with Abrogation in Public Law

You have quite rightly identified sourcing issues with this article. I am aware that the sources are not the best fit generally, and that what is really needed is a concrete definition for this particular meaning of the word "Abrogation". Having said that, I really do believe something is needed to address this gap in the usage of this term. I searched high and low for something close to this meaning and read all the other pages the led from the disambiguation page for Abrogation. Perhaps the page should have been called "Abrogation in law", so a more general approach could have been taken? There again, the usage which I had come across appeared to be mainly in the realm of UK Public Law, so this is the main reason why the page name was chosen. I can appreciate why you think that the article is too dependent on primary sources, due to the link with the judicial review R (March) v Secretary of State for Health in which I was the claimant. This is why I thought there would be a CoI. Technically, none of the sources cited are "primary" as I have not directly authored any of them. The two weak sources are ref. 9 (the claim form for Michelmores, LLP (18 August 2009) and ref. 10 (Defendant's Summary Grounds of Defence). They were authored by solicitors of the respective legal teams for the opposing sides of the above-mentioned judicial review. The main flaw with these sources is that they are not available online for verification. Is there a way I can upload them somewhere to make them available in a way that would help create reliable sources? References 9 and 10 are very good examples of this precise use of the word "abrogation" in the field, as it were. What this page really needs is some input from some solid legal authorities, perhaps from law texts dealing with Constitutional Law and Public Law. I've addressed the issue of original research that you identified in the unsourced passage of text under Abrogation in public law#Constitutionality (para 2, third sentence), and I have now sourced it with a more specific reference to McWhirter & Anor and added a quotation within the reference. The reason this unsourced section happened is I simply forgot to source it because I was so focussed on trying to reword the source material so as not to render a direct quotation in the body of the article. I hope that some editors with legal experience will help develop the page in the future. Thank you for reviewing the article.SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

SpookiePuppy, uploading sources isn't necessary; if I was skeptical about specific claims I might ask you to email me a scan or transcribe key portions, but that isn't the issue here. I appreciate the work you're doing, but I do want to clarify that I think you're misunderstanding what a primary source is on Wikipedia. For a legal concept like abrogation, more important than authorship is how the sources use or analyze the term. Examples that use "abrogation" in the field are still primary sources with respect to the concept of abrogation, as they are utilizing the concept rather than providing commentary about it--I think that the only types of coverage that would be truly secondary would be papers analyzing the use or history of the term (textbooks and dictionaries, although tertiary, would also be preferable to primary sources, see more at WP:PRIMARY).
On another note, in the future, comments like this should be made on the relevant article's talk page (you can ping me we {{ping|Rosguill}} to make sure it doesn't escape my notice) so that other editors that come across the article can benefit from any comments we might make. signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Neil Crud

Hi Rosguill - you've redirected this page i've edited to Sons of Selina, stating sources are not good enough - please can you look into it, or un-redirect it - or let me know what needs to be done as I have other related info to add to other pages that the Redirect kind of doesn't bear direct relevance to? - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Hunter4 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Hunter4, the standard for whether to create an article is explained at WP:GNG: you need multiple citations to significant independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As of when I redirected it, the article was overwhelmingly reliant on citations to link2wales (not independent of Crud), with the only other sources being a Wikipedia mirror (not reliable), a Discogs database entry (not secondary or significant), a BBC article that doesn't mention Crud specifically (not significant), and a self-published database entry (not reliable, not significant, not secondary). signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

OK I hear what you're saying - are you suggesting he doesn't exist? - I don't think the Redirect to his band is relevant enough to the work he has done since... Maybe we should delete the link altogether, or do you suggest we seek other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Hunter4 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Hunter4, if you think that the redirect is more confusing than helpful, then nominating it for WP:RfD is the way to go. Redirecting not-quite-notable people to associated groups is pretty standard practice, but if he's equally well known for various multiple things (and especially if information about him is spread across multiple articles) then deleting the redirect may be preferable. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

The revert on Short Films by Louis C.K. is unwarranted and disgusting vandalism, please stop!! Or I will report you!! IT HAS ENOUGH CREDIBILITY TO EXIST AND HAS ENOUGH SOURCES!! Thank you!!

Sjur03, I haven't reverted you even once there. I objected to the article's creation because the sourcing didn't meet WP:GNG. At this point two other experienced new page reviewers have done the same. I'd suggest that you stop edit warring and start looking for sources that would actually establish the subject's notability, or else you may be facing a block. signed, Rosguill talk 14:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sjur03, shouting at Rosguill or threatening them isn't going to land credibility to any of your claims so cool off. Celestina007 16:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixing it.

9rush removed on Wikipedia. Logan Tamai-Newton (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_16&oldid=986169904"