Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Reliable source

Hi, do you consider this one a reliable source for Martin Meylin bio ? --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Marcric, it's not clear whether the piece was published anywhere. Since it doesn't seem like it should be a terribly controversial subject, you may be able to argue that Dr. Timothy Trussel is a sufficient expert in the field to justify use of the piece. signed, Rosguill talk 23:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
So, will republish my version with the new source and a "further reading" item. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Marcric, be advised that one source is generally not enough to justify establishing an article. You need multiple citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, but it is explicitly a stub be my guest to make it better... Will create and link a portuguese language version of it ASAP. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that based on the list of citations in the article you shared above, you're not going to have too hard of a time establishing notability. signed, Rosguill talk 04:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
First step, second try  Done. New and improved Martin Meylin article stub. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Marcric, the revision you just wrote has been flagged as copyvio, see [1]. I'd suggest that you rewrite the sections that you copied in (and that are flagged by the link I provided) or I'm going to have to remove the content in question. signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, my English and Wiki skills are not sufficient to achieve what is needed. I give up. Do what you need to. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Marcric, I've fixed the text in this article, but going forward it is important that you not copy and paste text like that. It's a violation of Wikipedia's policies and can get us in legal trouble. I'd suggest that you even avoid copying text with the intent to change up the phrasing before publishing the edit. Continued failure to follow our copyright policies will unfortunately result in a loss of editing privileges. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your cooperation. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

NPP

Hello Rosgull, I am planning to go on a Wikibreak early next month since I have to deal with a few things in rl. I was granted NPP right for two months as a trio period and it will be expiring early next month as well, when I am on the Wikibreak. I believe I have established a track record of having reviewed more than 100 pages during my trial. Is it wise to post a request at WP:RFP/NPR or should I wait? Your insight will be appreciated. Best regards Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 21:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, I think it's fine either way. The only thing I'd avoid doing is having the permissions request be your literal first edit when you come back. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Then I’ll have to request early for extension. Thanks Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 22:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Patrol

Hello. Please see the article - Abinsk Electric Steel Works. The participant posted a template about lack of significance and advertising. The article presents the leading Russian news agencies: Kommersant, Vedomosti, Interfax, RBC Group. Look please. Significance is shown by authoritative sources. There is no advertisement. Namerst (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Namerst, you should bring this to the attention of the editor who placed those tags. My guess is that they felt that the coverage, while in reliable sources, is too WP:ROUTINE to clearly count towards establishing notability. The POV tag, meanwhile, is a comment on the article's written content, not on its sourcing. I don't think that the article's writing is egregious and I probably wouldn't have placed that tag myself, but I can see why they might have felt that the article was not neutrally written. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

term Batching( [computer graphics]) at the Vulkan API page

Rosguill, I saw that you reverted my change regarding Batching at the Vulkan API page, Does it mean that description provided does not meet the real explanation of the term Batching in a certain scope? As I understood batching in that scope exactly about optimization, I would modify if it makes sense, should I, or what better to do? Максим Т17 (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Максим Т17, I'm not sure what you mean by the Vulkan API page, I only remember reverting your edits at Batching. I think that there were two issues with that article: the first was that while the article's content suggested that the subject was a distinct topic, the cited sources seemed to be talking about the same subject as Batch processing, in which case we don't need new articles. The second issue is that even if I'm mistaken about the article duplicating the scope of an existing article, you created said article at Batching, which is an ambiguous term that needs to stay as a redirect to the disambiguation page Batch. If you can find sources to establish that batching in the context of computer graphics is notable deserves a separate article (and I don't think that the sources you cited were enough to establish notability even before considering the overlap with the existing article), it would need to be created at Batching (computer graphics), not at Batching. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Thanks for the explanation, I have added an article "Batching (computer graphics)" which covers the definition mentioned on "Vulkan API" page for my opinion. Максим Т17 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Максим Т17, I'm still not seeing how it's a distinct subject from Batch processing, and will likely nominate it for deletion soon if you can't address this issue. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill In Batch processing article described the term as more general in the scope of Computer science. In my case, there is an explanation more dedicated to computer graphics, as an approach for optimization. Feel free to remove if there is no distinct subject.Максим Т17 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Максим Т17, it seems like something that would be more appropriate as a section of Batch processing, rather than as a separate article. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Ok, I agree with that, I can do it. But I will be busy the next day or even more. And I'm not sure how the author of the Batch processing article may react, maybe he(she) thinks that explanation is already fine.Максим Т17 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Максим Т17, no one owns articles on Wikipedia (see WP:OWN), so you're well within your rights to start making changes to Batch processing. I think a good place to add content to the article would be as a subsection of the "Common batch processing usage" section. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, ok I got it. Would it be not a problem if it will take 1-2 days? We can remove the article what I've added today, when I will be available I will extend the section on the existing page.Максим Т17 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Максим Т17, sure, there's no deadline. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, could I ask you to remove the article - Batching (computer graphics), I'm not sure how to do it correctly) And I'm not seeing an option for this on the page. Thanks.Максим Т17 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing note

Hello, I can't make sense out of your note here. Just because the thread was automatically archived, the closure could be still made. There was clear-cut consensus for sanction with 11 support for the sanctions and only 5 opposes for the sanctions (entirely blaming other unnamed editors for the disruption without diffs). In which book multiple violations of 3RR, misrepresentation of sources, gross CIR, among various other methods to disrupt Wikipedia is not sanctionable? You should modify your close or allow someone else to do it.

P.S. disruptive editing by this user is still continuing. See this edit on  Mughlai paratha. Can you verify if the added source mentions "Bengal subah"? The CIR is still recurring even after an extended ANI. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I read through the discussion. While there was a majority in favor of sanctions, there were several editors opposed and it wasn't clear that those in favor of sanctions had refuted their points. I actually had originally written a closing statement for no consensus, but scrapped it once I saw that the page had already been archived. While there were some valid accusations of poor editing conduct, a significant amount of the allegations and diffs were simply not sanctionable behavior. It seemed like editors were trying to throw everything they could at Za-arimasen to see what would stick.
As for this specific additional evidence, I agree that the source doesn't mention "Bengal subah", but from reading the talk page it doesn't seem like that's what Za-arimasen was trying to establish with that source; their main intent seems to have been to establish that the dish hails from Bengal, which the source does establish (Dhaka, to be precise). Bengal Subah appears to have been added to the article much earlier as a piped link for "Mughal Bengal". It could be argued that that's improper synthesis, but no one seems to have actually made that case at the article's talk page or in its edit history. Going back to the source, it mentions how a lot of the culinary influences associated with Mughlai parantha predate the Mughals, but it doesn't give a firm date for its invention other than the myth involving Emperor Jahangir; other cited sources such as this book (probably the most reliable source in the entire article) do appear to describe it as a Mughal-era innovation.
Honestly, this additional allegation is exactly the kind of argument that left me unwilling to impose sanctions at ANI. The edit isn't flawless, but neither is it clearly something sanctionable, and you haven't done your homework of engaging with the edit in question to demonstrate that it actually is a problem. I can empathize that it can be very frustrating to engage with an editor that you believe is editing poorly or in bad faith, but if that's the case you should be making your ANI case based on existing interactions that you've had with them and obvious breaches of policy, not based on additional diffs that you think look suspicious but aren't obviously problematic. To me, all this diff establishes is that you're jumping to assume bad faith (or incompetence) on the part of this editor. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion is very clear on ANI. Nobody had refuted the "violations of 3RR, misrepresentation of sources, gross CIR, among various other methods to disrupt Wikipedia". In which book such behavior isn't sanctionable especially given the very block log of the editor in the question? In fact the majority of editors had agreed with the problem and the all of those editors are in good standing.
Me and dozens of editors have had enough interaction with the editor in question and all attempts have ultimately failed. To say that everyone should continue to fix their mistake while they should remain obtuse towards any concerns raised about their disruptive editing is simply not possible. You agree that source misrepresentation took place on Mughlai paratha, even after an extended ANI and nothing else really matters more at this stage. Finding loopholes might be appreciated when the editor is new and mostly constructive but the case is totally opposite here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
There was plenty of push back on the various allegations. I stand by my decision, and I note that the only admin to participate in the discussion opposed sanctions. If there's edit warring, take it to AN3. Finally, I don't agree that what happened at Mughlai paratha is source misrepresentation, and I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion from reading my comment. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing the many articles and redirects that I've created. I realize that it must be tedious but just so you known, it is appreciated! Mgkrupa 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Mgkrupa. I actually just checked and your track record for redirects is good enough to let the bot mark them as reviewed, so I won't be reviewing those anymore. signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Cool! I hope that you have a good rest of your day. Mgkrupa 18:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For keeping the ship afloat the old fashioned way, I award you...

The Iron Age hand bailer of Nydam Mose
DannyS712 bot III seems be topping the NPR charts these days, but you and a couple of other editors have been nipping at its electronic heels for some time now. Just a few weeks ago we were up at >10,000 articles in the queue - it's been great to see that figure come down, largely due to your amazing contributions. Thanks, and keep it up! GirthSummit (blether) 15:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Girth Summit, although perhaps in the future we should call this the John Henry award? signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me - I think I know a song about him! GirthSummit (blether) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A request for help

I have a question about something that took place several months ago, so you may not remember it well enough to be able to help. but if you can I shall be grateful.

I am looking into concerns that an editor has raised in an email, that a particular editor may be using sockpuppets, and also that those sockpuppets may be used for undisclosed paid editing. I have discovered that in the past the editor had the autopatrolled right removed because of suspicion of undisclosed paid editing, and then requested restoration of that right. You declined the request in this edit, but three days later you restored the right. As far as I can see you did not explain anywhere the reason for your change of heart; if you did then you did so in a post which is not at all easily findable, and certainly not very close to the time when you restored the right. As I said above, it was some time ago and you may not remember it well, but on the other hand publicly declining a request, leaving it for a few days, and then granting it without any explanation is such a striking thing to do that perhaps you had reasons which were sufficiently special and unusual that you do remember, in which case it would help me if you could let me know what those reasons were. Also in the post I am linking you referred to "additional information" you had received off-wiki. Is it possible for you to let me know what that information was? JBW (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

JBW, I do remember this incident and I'll respond via email. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. JBW (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

my article- georgian fashion model Mathilda Mariam Gvarliani

Please check out my article, I have been waiting for a long time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Failure of international mediation

Thank you for your assistance on this page. I've been following this conflict from the start (1988) and the UN Resolutions were key in bringing the whole temper of the war down, and the OSCE Minsk mediation then came out of those. This then turned into the Madrid Principles, which is what was on the table until 2016-2020. There is no doubt that the Madrid principles are the state-of-the-art in international relations. There is also no doubt that the international community took their eye off this conflict, around 2016, for some reason, resulting in the failure of the Madrid Principles and now hundreds of deaths. I have now added back in the statement and backed it up with one Armenian, one Azerbaijani, and one Russian (former colonial power) cite, the latter essentially being a Russian language transcript of the President of Artsbakh on the Principles and worth reading. Johncdraper (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I actually hadn't meant to remove that, while I was working on improving the chronology of the Background section I must have accidentally left it on the cutting room floor. I've gone ahead and made the changes I had originally intended, changing the wording and position of the claim, but keeping the information itself. signed, Rosguill talk 06:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Okay. Thank you. BTW, both Armenians and Azeris have been tweeting about both the Wikipedia page and what's happening on the Talk page, which is why it's been getting so many hits, especially after the page hit the Main Page, at which point all hell broke loose until I arrived. I managed to edit out much of the 'death or glory' language and added the Calm and Contentious templates, which helped calm things down further. However, there are persistent attempts to re-open issues (not talking about mercenaries vs. volunteers; that is obviously a valid discussion), spam the Talk, or otherwise abuse or misuse it, whether deliberately or out of lack of knowledge about a Talk's purpose, and I have now started moderating the Talk more judiciously, while spelling out exactly why I am deleting, rejecting or removing posts. It looks like we could be in for the long haul, unfortunately. Johncdraper (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Johncdraper The help is appreciated, I'll try to keep a closer look on it in the coming days. signed, Rosguill talk 07:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As long as you're redacting

I noted that you redacted an untoward comment I made about the seemingly aggressive nature of another editor who borders on zealotry. Thank you for keeping me in check. I don't want to make feel unwelcome a new editor who just happened to come join us on Wikipedia only three months ago. Me, I've only been here for eight years, so maybe I'm not "new" and "fresh" and "hip" enough to put my feelings aside when I see that newer editor saying "adulterous Mary who opened her private parts to Roman soldiers" about Mary, the mother of Jesus whom millions hold as a sacred person. I wouldn't want to see that new editor's personal thoughts on religion redacted, the way my thoughts on religion were redacted. We must give the more aggressive new editors a wide berth, so that they feel welcome. - AppleBsTime (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

AppleBsTime, The edit you've highlighted here is in incredibly poor taste as well, and appears to have been removed at some point between when it was made several weeks ago and today. I can't revdel it without taking a huge chunk of history from the page out as well so there isn't much I can do about it. signed, Rosguill talk 01:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Not canvassing for input, but if you are so moved: I opened a WP:AN/I about the user AleviQizilbash. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

thank you for advice. Now I have deleted data from the article, the references of which were more or less not specified. I don't get paid for writing the article. Please review the article carefully and if you have additional remark, let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, do you have any connection, financial or otherwise, with Gvarliani, her modeling agencies, or press agencies that are working with them? For what it's worth, the sources are still woefully inadequate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockfarm interference

Hi. Hate to bug you. There are three articles which were created by a banned user, User:Daaask, which I've tagged for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, ip socks are continually removing the CSD templates. Could you have a look at them, and if you feel that no other editors have made substantial contributions, could you take care of them. I've gone through the history, and the only substantial contributions I can see being made are by the various socks of the sockpuppeteer. The artices are Endrendrum Punnagai (TV series), Piriyadha Varam Vendum (TV series), and Kandukondain Kandukondain (TV series). A fourth one, Hansika Motwani filmography before the tag was removed, although a fifth, Gokulathil Seethai (2019 TV series), was reviewed by another admin, who thought that there was enough editing by other editors to negate it being created a blocked editor. Thanks, it's just annoying to have to keep re-adding the tags.Onel5969 TT me 03:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done signed, Rosguill talk 03:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
That was quick! Thank you.Onel5969 TT me 11:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Operation Kamala for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Kamala 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/Operation Kamala 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. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Kneipp

Dear Rosguill,

Thanks for reviewing the (redirect) pages around Kneipp treatment/medicine/... Actually I had forgotten that I created them but I think it´s important because we Wikipedians IMHO often care too less about "SEO" (and "tend to a bit digital autism”").

I don´t know if you have any experience with this Kneipp stuff but it´s popular in the German speaking countries. I also created this article where you can see some pictures of devices.

BTW I like this quote from Sebastian Kneipp: "If you don't have time for your health today, you'll need a lot of time for your diseases later."

Have a good new week --F.Blaubiget (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: I find your contributions and profile really interesting, e.g. so many language skills (I think combined with Google translate and DeepL it´s unbeatable to see through in this world; I didn´t know that Jiidisch is written in Hebrew characters). Sometimes I have questions about WP and it would be nice if I could aks you - as a experienced global contributor - from time to time.

F.Blaubiget, thanks for the message; if you have any questions I can try my best to answer them, or at the very least point you to somewhere where you can find a better answer. signed, Rosguill talk 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Rosguill, very nice. I would have one thing already: Norman conquest of England I thought I would have explained it well enough so that others do understand the improvement, but it was reverted. Is there really a need to start a discussion on the talk page? I added "(often called Harold or Harold II)", otherwise the use of family name and given name is irritating:
"...was succeeded by his brother-in-law Harold Godwinson (often called Harold or Harold II). The Norwegian king Harald Hardrada invaded northern England in September 1066 and was victorious at the Battle of Fulford, but Godwinson's army defeated and killed Hardrada at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September. Within days, William landed in southern England. Harold marched south to oppose him, leaving a significant portion of his army in the north." — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Blaubiget (talk • contribs) 10:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
F.Blaubiget, yeah, taking it up on the talk page is the appropriate next step. It's possible that the other editor thinks that it's clear enough who Harold is without the explanation, or else didn't realize that we refer to him as Harold in that paragraph. signed, Rosguill talk 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh ok, thank you, then I will take it up on the talk page (I thought correcting a confusing, inconsistent use of family and given name is an easy thing; especially because there is Harold as well as Harald). Have a good new week --F.Blaubiget (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Archiving the 2020 N-K Talk

Would you please consider archiving some of the Talk topics on this page? I think it might be a good idea as it is around bedtime for the region. Johncdraper (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Article

Sir, am Govindhammal Murugesan, As i saw that Endrendrum Punnagai (TV series) was deleted, i am watching this series and i love it. May i create it sir please!!!. Govindmmalcc89 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Can u replay sir please!!Govindmmalcc89 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Diocese of Duvno

Greetings!

May I know why the Diocese of Duvno article was renamed (moved)? Why did you drop the Catholic adjective? I'm asking because I don't know whether your edit concerns only the ancient defunct dioceses or it concerns all of the dioceses, such as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno? --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, A request was made to G6 the page now at Catholic Diocese of Duvno, which seemed uncontroversial if unnecessary, so I partially complied and swapped them instead. I don't have a personal opinion on the title. signed, Rosguill talk 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

I have added an important source, please check again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, my opinion remains unchanged. Unless you can find sources in a news publication or professionally published magazine, I don't think you're going to have much luck here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

I'm shocked .. I specifically told a Matilda agent to do a Matilda profile on models.com. Please delete unreliable sources or part of the text .. to find out which source to replace. models.com, fashionmodeldirectory.com, vogue.it, fashionpress.it and Matilda Agency Websites> If you do not trust these sites then you are making fun of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, per your above response, you need to comply with our conflict of interest disclosure guideline as you appear to have some sort of connection to the subject of the article you are trying to publish. Failure to do so before continuing to make edits will result in you being blocked from editing. signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

Once again I say Matilda is my friend. I do not receive any compensation. He just asked me to create his page and I did not know if approving the article would be so difficult .. I have nothing to do with the topic of this article and how can I prove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, even being just your friend is considered a conflict of interest and requires proper disclosure on both your user page and the article talk page, and it is highly discouraged for you to edit such articles. If you insist on editing it further, submit it through the WP:AfC process, which handles new articles by editors with conflicts of interest. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Another problem very similar to one you've handled

Would you please consider helping at this page as you did at Physical attractiveness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_Freedom,_and_Diversity&action=history

Namely, please consider protecting the page and block the two accounts (one of which is an obvious sock). They are trolling by trying to add the names of real but unrelated people to this unsavory political party.

They also uploaded a picture of somebody to Commons with a file name tying her to this political party. Not sure how to handle that. Crossroads -talk- 15:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I've gone ahead and blocked the offending accounts. I don't see any similar activity prior to OrangeRodent's editing so I'm going to hold off on page protection for now. I'm guessing that the best thing to do with the Commons image is just to start a deletion discussion for it over there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes sense. Crossroads -talk- 19:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

'2019–2020 outbreak' redirect

Just wanted to clarify your keep determination for 2019–2020 outbreak. This pertains only to the redirect itself, not the hatnote, correct? There seemed to be consensus that the hatnote was not necessary. The redirect accounted for 130 PVs out of 1.6 million over the last 30 days. Let me know if this is incorrect though. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz, yeah, the close refers to the redirect itself, and I agree that the discussion regarding the hatnote was largely agreement for its removal. IMO a discussion about whether or not to keep a hatnote belongs on the article's talk page, not at RfD. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thanks so much for clarifying. I'm new to redirect threads so it's my content that created the confusion. I'll avoid bringing up hatnotes in the future. For avoidance of doubt, would it be possible to just edit the close to "keep redirect."? Thanks again. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! - Wikmoz (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Article

Can you please verify the article Draft:Piriyadha Varam Vendum (TV series) and move to main page sir. Kannalane (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Kannalane, just submit it through AfC, there's a button on the draft that you can click. signed, Rosguill talk 15:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was Republic of Artsakh article unprotected?

The previously protected article may be left open for editing and subject to vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.171.119 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You can read the page's protection log here. It was protected for 2 weeks at the outset of hostilities in September, after which the protection automatically expired. This is by design, since generally articles don't need to be protected except when being actively vandalized, and we don't protect pages preemptively. I do see that there's been a fair amount of vandalism over the past few days, so I've protected the page for an additional week. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you but the following part in the beginning has been changed while it was unprotected and can you delete it as if it is incorrect. that is internationally recognized as a part of azerbaijan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.171.119 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Mm, as far as I'm aware that's accurate based on reliable sources, no country (not even Armenia) has extended recognition to Artsakh. You're going to have to suggest that as a change on the talk page, and bring sources in tow. signed, Rosguill talk 16:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

It may be necessary to semi-protect this Talk. See forum-like comments removed. I cannot patrol overnight. I am officially busy. What do you suggest? Johncdraper (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, protecting a talk page is a pretty drastic step because there's no way for editors to make requests to get around it, so I'm not sure that's a good idea at this time, and likely won't be unless we have a spate of editors aggressively disrupting the page rather than just making redundant or poorly considered edit requests. I'll make a post asking for help at WP:AN to hopefully get a few more hands involved. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on youth career in infobox

Hi, for the votes I count:

  1. Option 1: 5 (16.7%)
  2. Option 3: 12 (40.0%)
  3. Option 5: 2 (6.7%)
  4. Option 6: 1 (3.3%)
  5. Option 7: 10 (33.3%)

Opposed:

  1. Option 1: 2
  2. Option 7: 3

Some people changed their minds, and some votes are a bit more ambiguous at first reading (for example, Option 1(b) plus Option 3 is advocating for an option 3(b), not 1(b) and 3). Nehme1499 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nehme1499, I think that regardless of which count method is used, we still fall short of consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. Do you think this is a good method? Everyone votes for one of the three options, and opposes another. This way, each person "ranks" the three options in order of preference (one is the "best", the other the "worst", and the third option is the "compromise"). Nehme1499 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Nehme1499, it seems a bit too bureaucratic and vote-centric to me. I think that given the non-trivial amount of editors who seem happy with the current status quo, and that the second-most popular option was to just to exclude the at-issue content entirely (option 7), I don't think it's likely that you're going to be able to form a consensus for any of the currently proposed alternatives, with the possible exception that continuing to dispute the issue may push editors towards option 7 as people decide that the issue isn't worth the effort. Hashing out the issues around 1b or 3b may realign some editors, but I'm skeptical that this would provide a decisive advantage to a side in the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the implication that, by just dropping the stick, we will just have to accept the status quo. I don't see it as "5 people are happy with the status quo", rather, that over 80% doesn't accept it (and some explicitly oppose it). While there is not an explicit consensus for a specific vote, it is evident that the vast majority of people in the project (and some outside of it) want the situation to change. There has to be a reasonable solution to this. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Nehme1499, you're welcome to keep working at it. But I don't think that a different voting system is going to fix the problem. signed, Rosguill talk 06:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Pollack

What do I need to do in order to accept this draft, now that the RFD for Michael Pollack to Michael J. Pollard was closed as Keep? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, just file a G6 request when you're ready to accept the draft. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, in looking at it, I think that I should rename it to Draft:Michael Pollack (musician), and then accept that. I think that I have the ability to do that, but will check with you and with User:GeneralNotability first, because there is an EC-move protection due to suckpoppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, if it's just EC protection I don't think you'll have any problem. In that situation though, it may be appropriate to add a hatnote at the current target, or possibly to reopen the RfD discussion in light of the changes. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Rosguill - I have accepted the draft as Michael Pollack (musician), and have converted Michael Pollack into a disambiguation page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Concur. Robert McClenon, if you think it's an accept then you can move it yourself (I trust your judgment). GeneralNotability (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI de-indexing talk close

Administrator's noticeboard already appears on MediaWiki:Robots.txt as disallow, and {{BLP}} already noindexes most BLP talk pages with an explicit __NOINDEX__. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno, thanks for the note, I'll add a mention of that in the close. signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
What the latter doesn't noindex of course are talk page archives for BLPs, which I think was a (the?) point of the discussion there. I don't want to re-read it. :) --Izno (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Izno, the discussion was about talk pages more broadly, although the oppose votes predicated on external searches being useful were mostly about archived pages. signed, Rosguill talk 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School Application

Greetings Mr. Rosguill, a few hours ago you denied my permission request regarding new page reviewing. You also mentioned that I can apply for NPP "School". Consider this my application message. (My Timezone is CEST, but I'm awake most of the day) Signed,Benjamin Borg (Talk) 12:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Borg, I've started a lesson page for you here, feel free to start whenever you're ready. signed, Rosguill talk 15:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:MyGate

Hi Sir, I have disclosed the paid editing on my userpage and assure you that I will not try to edit the page and will put all the changes or additions to its talk page. I request you to please help me move it back to mainspace. Thanks a lot.Loveneeth (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Loveneeth, the appropriate article submission process for articles when you have a conflict of interest is through Articles for creation. Just hit the submit button on the draft and it will get added to the queue for review. signed, Rosguill talk 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
But sir this page was already reviewed by someone and had been there in mainspace for quite a long time. I understand that the page had contained promotional content which I have removed. It does not look promotional anymore and meets wiki standards. I will be so grateful if you take out a few moments of your precious time to have a look at this. Thanks a lot.Loveneeth (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/980194946/981495653

Regarding this edit in which you added "2=iPhone (Xth generation)" so that "this redirect's entry" link has "#iPhone (Xth generation)" instead of "#IPhone (13th generation)" section destination, I think Module:RfD would need change so that your contribution works.

Also, date could be updated (from 2020_September_25 to 2020_October_13) but there is 'Relisted, see' redirect to moved discussion. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hm, not sure why that happened. Probably worth bringing up at WT:XFDC, as that was the script I used to perform the edit. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your dedication. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:The9Man submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I gladly nominate Editor Rosguill to be this weeks Editor of the Week for their untiring work at the NPP and for guiding other editors on implementing NPP policies. They are THE editor who dedicatedly works, on a day to day basis, to clean up the queue. Their time spent accomplishing the needed work and theiur dedication to Wikipedia is impressive and should be appreciated by all editors. Here is a link to support my claim - Top New Article Reviewers in Last 365 Days.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
New Page Reviewer of the Year in 2019
Rosguill
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning October 18, 2020
Works untiringly at the NPP and guides other editors on NPP policies. They work dedicatedly, every day, cleaning and editing and protecting the queue. The time spent accomplishing the needed work and their dedication to Wikipedia is impressive and is appreciated by all editors.
Recognized for
Taking a stand to do the Work
Notable work
Top New Article Reviewers in Last 365 Days
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on your well-deserved achievement Rosguill. Thanks for your outstanding work. - The9Man (Talk) 06:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
WooHoo! A much-deserved pat on the back for a bunch of great work! Congratulations! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hazarbuz

Glad to hear from you, but I didn't have any dispute with any of the editor. I published my article initially on Hazarbuz and was reported back for lack of citation, for what I come up with proper citation work and republished it. Now it's been removed again from your side by calling it disruptive, as it's based on proper research, books, facts and references. As I just want to publish it for the information of the rest of the world. kindly look at the matter more deeply and suggest the changes required. --Ihsan.khan0003 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ihsan.khan0003, can you explain why you cited a blank search page, an article about London during Roman rule, a social media news page, and a Danish arts and sciences publication's homepage for an article about a Pashtun tribe? signed, Rosguill talk 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I provide all those links that will take you to the Books written on this Pashtun tribe and social media website that post an article about the tribe as well. I think you find it blank as it is not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihsan.khan0003 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The sources you provided are nowhere near sufficient to support the creation of an article. If you have actual book sources, please cite them directly, including page numbers. signed, Rosguill talk 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill, I read the book but it's not available right now to me, but the website I cited also highlight abit, furthermore, I will keep updating the article with the passage of time once it's get approved as im collecting real and up to date data about the tribe. kindly cooperate in this regard sir as I'm new to Wikipedia as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihsan.khan0003 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPPSCHOOL

I'm going to have quite a bit of spare time over the next few weeks, so would it be OK for you to be my mentor for NPPSCHOOL? NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 08:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

NonsensicalSystem, sure thing, I've started a page for you at User:Rosguill/NonsensicalSystem NPPSCHOOL whenever you're ready. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about redirects

Now User:EmausBot had fixed double redirect, but problem remains. Why at all there is a need for Shahpur (Village) and Shahpur (village) redirect? There already exist Shahpur where I can see several villages with Shahpur name. And not all of this villages have mentioned in English Wikipedia. I can understand if "Shahpur (village)" would be the disambig page, but present situation is just strange, both redirects are misleading.
Is there a need to redirects of no use in wiki? If we keep all that stuff, does it mean that someone could just add a bunch of redirects to some pages just in case? Please, explain if I incorrectly understood some of this. IMDJack (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IMDJack, we don't need it, and I would encourage editors to avoid creating such redirects in the first place, but it's also harmless and probably not worth the effort of deleting it. In some cases, deleting redirects can break external links to the site (although I doubt that is the case here). Regarding your concerns about the target, that could be resolved by retargeting it to Shahpur. signed, Rosguill talk 22:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, I got it, thanks for clarification. IMDJack (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Same old story

The story is always the same on Wikipedia. But I guess you're just another one who follows the instructions on this "encyclopedia" and that it'd to be done. Too bad that the guy you gave reason to has no idea of how things changed about that matter. --217.59.200.127 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have an issue with another editor's edits to an article, engage with them on the talk page. If the issue can't be resolved there, take it to WP:DRN or call an WP:RfC. Edit warring is not an acceptable way of handling a dispute. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact I wrote on his talk page. The results has been the guy reverted my edits once again just to edit the page with the same information moments later. Which is funny, don't you think? Since my IP changed I didn't notice the message from him on the noticeboard but he already knew what to do: report me for disruptive editing. I didn't report his insult on the article talk page instead. Next time I will try to do the same, maybe things will work differently. And to be clear, I knew about WP:RfC but they always say there's no need for such a request to be there: as a result, you don't get any comment (see what happened with Talk:2020 in sports, for instance). There's always something not working efficiently here. --217.59.200.127 (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest asking for help at the teahouse for pointers on how to write an RfC that will draw participation. You also may find it easier to navigate the site if you create an account, as this will make it easier for editors to notify you of relevant discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

SIE London Studio

Could you please explain why the SIE London Studio page needs to be redirected and what needs to be changed to keep the page up? Thanks. Poklane 20:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Poklane, sources need to be provided that meet WP:ORGCRITE in order to establish the subject's notability. The last revision I saw was largely dependent on mere-mentions and coverage in non-independent sources. Additionally, because this is a subsidiary of a larger company, such sources need to establish the notability of the London Studio separate from the parent company (i.e. coverage needs to primarily discuss the London Studio in detail, not simply mentioning it as part of deeper coverage about the parent company). signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding block

Hi Rosguill, I'm the person who requested page protection for Durga article. May I know the exact reason why i have been blocked. - MRRaja001 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing the article on Ueda Shinichirou

Dear Rosguill, you just removed the page I posted on Ueda Shinichirou because you think there might be a conflict of interest. But I didn't get paid for writing the page nor do I have any personal connection to the actor in question. I only created this page as a mirror page to the Japanese page (edited by me as well) so international fans of Japanese stages, who can't speack/read Japanese very well can follow his career. I'm a new editor so I might have made a mistake but since I never encountered any issues on the Japanese wiki site I assumed I did everything according to the guidelines. Please let me know what I can do to get the article approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeenaEvilin (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

LeenaEvilin, just make sure that it has at least three citations to significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to comply with WP:GNG and hit the submit button. Because Japanese pop culture sources can sometimes be a bit hard for editors unfamiliar with the language to assess, I would suggest identifying the three best sources on the talk page so that a reviewer can evaluate the article more quickly. I would also recommend shortening the list of appearances to the most significant ones, and removing the trivia section per MOS:TRIVIA. signed, Rosguill talk 01:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I added my 3 main sources to the talk page and changed the 'trivia-part' to 'career' but I strongly oppose the idea of shortening the list of appearances because a) as I said it's supposed to mirror the japanese wiki-site and b) it's already hard enough to get any English information on Japanese actors so I think it is important to add as much details as possible. I did a lot of research on how other Japanese actors wiki-pages (Japanese & English) were designed before writing this article and some of them are going even more into details so I don't think it's 'too' much. Anyway, I hope the article can be approved this way. LeenaEvilin (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Tanja Bruske

What is the reason that the article Tanja Bruske may be deleted? Avestaboy (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Avestaboy, I've laid out my reasoning at the deletion discussion, which you can find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanja Bruske signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

OSS Fighters

Hi! It is no promotional, advertisement. If you want participate and write it in neutral manner, but keep my info please! I wrote it exactly like the American promotions.

.karellian-24‎, the emphasis on the partnerships and sponsors comes off as promotional; a more encyclopedic approach would be to focus on the history of the promotion and its results. Referring to the partnerships as "strategic", as you did in the edits where you removed the template, is a further step in the wrong direction. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a fan of kickboxing, kickboxing is the number 1 fighting sport in Romania. I am not particularly interested in any promotion, proof that I have been on Wikipedia for years and I have opened several organisation pages. In the sport, and not only. Recently in MMA. I removed your template because I thought it's not an advertisement. I am usually checking the material on the American fighting promotions. If it's compatible. Now you know I am not a native speaker, I have heard this term also in kickboxing. And it was written here at Invicta Fighting Championships. Regards, .karellian-24 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
.karellian-24, yeah at this point I don't think you have a COI, I was just clarifying my reasoning. I would suggest for your own sake, however, that you put a brief response to the template on your page, otherwise other editors looking at your talk page won't know that you responded and may think that you're trying to dodge the request for disclosure. signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg Merry Christmas Rosguill

Hi Rosguill, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.
Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thank you for your kind words, I don't go out of my way to bring articles back into mainspace unless it is for a good reason, and usually it's because I have already read the significant coverage from many of the reliable sources vetted by the VG Wiki project and make my judgment based on that. Here's a barnstar for you too. I appreciate that you've kept up with the articles I have written, and giving my contributions a fair look instead of casually writing it off. Haleth (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


Edit warring

This fella's actions are getting out hand. Just look at these: 1, 2, 3,. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, yeah, I know. I'm slightly too involved with the specific content at issue be comfortable using admin tools myself. I'm already drafting a report for AN3. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Solavirum, actually I'm not going to file anything at this time as they appear to have stopped, and had not yet been notified of discretionary sanctions so technically they haven't violated 3RR yet. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
As you wish. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Potential edit war and opinion on deadnaming

Hi, I thought you might have an opinion about this. On one hand, we should maintain a neutral tone. On the other hand, this is a fictional character. Is there consensus or precedent on wikipedia about guidelines on gender pronouns for fictional transgender characters? Haleth (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Haleth, I think that in this case we should defer to reliable source's coverage, considering as well the in-universe rendering of the name (i.e., what pronouns do in-game characters use when referring to this part of the character's past). As for the edit warring, while it's close to 3RR, it looks like a few different unrelated content disputes between the same editors in short succession and I'm not sure that intervention is necessary just yet. signed, Rosguill talk 05:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_18&oldid=996380301"