Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Madeleine Baran

Hi Rosguill. Thanks for reviewing the Madeleine Baran article. It was redirected to the In the Dark (podcast) with the comment "all independent coverage appears to be about the podcast". However, Baran's earlier award-winning work “Betrayed by Silence” is also notable as it led to the resignation of the archbishop, criminal charges against the archdiocese, and lawsuits by victims of clergy sex abuse. In addition, she has won 5 national awards for her investigative journalism. I'd like to undo the redirect based on the strength of Baran's contributions over and above a single podcast.

Any further comments or suggestions? Thanks again. Circlecubed (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Circlecubed: Thanks for taking this up, I looked at the draft again and redirecting the article was 100% a mistake on my part. I've reverted the change and marked the article as reviewed. signed, Rosguill talk 05:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Excellent, thanks very much. Circlecubed (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

GRID page

Rosguill, I created the page GRID Alternatives you recently flagged for conflict of interest disclosure. Thank you! I started using Wikipedia last year and appreciate you pointing out that I needed to disclose my close connection with the page as the organization is my current employer. I do feel the organization meets the Wikipedia standard for Notability and tried to write the article from a neutral point of view. Happy to take any feedback or cleanup needed to make sure the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Thanks! Sarzipan2000 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Jean-Marc Germain (businessman)

Hi Rosguill. Many thanks for reviewing this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jean-Marc_Germain_(businessman)

The subject of this article (Jean-Marc Germain) is at the head of one of the largest companies in the aluminum sector (Constellium), which generates a significant turnover (€ 5.2 billion in 2017) and is playing a leading role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions through closer partnerships with the automotive sector, as well as in private sector negotiations during the Trump administration's ongoing trade policy regarding aluminum tariffs. In respect of the general criteria of notoriety of Wikipedia the subject has been the object of at least two articles spaced of at least two years in important national and international media. As per your request to provide more citations to coverage, I added 3 recent news references from Le Monde, the Wall Street Journal and Les Echos. If you agree this article now better meets Wikipedia criteria, could you please reinstate?

Many thanks for your time, Andrewkess (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewkess: thanks for following up on this. Unfortunately, you have already submitted the article to the AfC queue, and I am not a member of the AfC project and thus don't have access to the helper script that would allow me to accept the article right now. Someone will get to it in the next few weeks and you should be good to go from there. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation

@Rosguill: thank you for reviewing T.D. Brodie Mends and thank you for the advise on referencing. Kinvidia (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Can the page T.D. Brodie Mends still be edited while the page is being reviewed by AfC? Kinvidia (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kinvidia: I assume you mean to ask if it can be edited while it has the Copyvio-revdel tag on it? The article has already passed through the new page queue so AfC is done. At any rate, you can absolutely make edits now, but don't remove the revdel tag, and avoid introducing more content that violates copyright. signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Obongjayar

Dear Rosguill,

Given a due for your generous contributions to the scope of the English Wikipedia, I want to kindly raise your awareness regarding the Obongjayar article you were the main contributor to that the notability of the subject of which should be shored up for the better as soon as possible (from my perspective). Diving into the category of Nigerian male musicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nigerian_male_musicians), I may witness general flaws plague a vast majority of articles put in a list there (a lack of citations, disputable notability, and more). Seeing my public comment put on the talk page of the article itself, you may agree that the laziness in bolstering up of the written takes that form a single article to count for your account should not be fully supported.

Have a nice day! This Is Where I Came In (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

About Alex Henry Foster's article

Hello Rosguill, thank you for contributing to the article I created for Alex Henry Foster. I'm wondering, how can I fix the "orphan" issue? He is the lead singer of the band Your Favorite Enemies. Can this help in any way?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Mme Gogo (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mme Gogo: Orphan tags are for when an article doesn't have any links pointing to it from other articles. In this case, it looks like someone added a link to Alex Henry Foster from the article for Your Favorite Enemies yesterday, so I've gone ahead and removed the tag. You can see a list of articles that link to a given page on Wikipedia by clicking the "What links here" button on the menu bar on the left side of your browser window, then set the Namespace drop down menu to "(Article)". signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit Tag on Wild Town

I noticed you added a tag to the article Wild Town saying it needed copy editing. But you made no comment on the talk page about any specifics. Can you tell me some specific reason that you added that tag? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: thanks for following up on this. In general, it needs edits to take a more encyclopedic tone, and some of the word choices (particularly in the portions describing or drawing comparisons with Thompson's life) border on WP:PEACOCK language and should perhaps be replaced with more neutral phrasing. signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Those aren't specifics and aren't helpful to me in trying to improve the article. What specifically is "peacock language" in the article? I.e., give me a quote from the article and tell me how it's "peacock language" or unencyclopedic. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
As with virtually all of his fiction, Thompson incorporated many aspects of his colorful life into the novel., the use of the term colorful is borderline peacock. I'd also suggest reading through the relevant guidelines at WP:TONE. I will add that I tagged the article as part of new page patrol, which is triage for new articles, and I don't want to fight you over the article's phrasing; if you strongly feel that the tag is inappropriate, I give you my blessing to remove it, or to let someone else take care of it. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Audrey McGinn

Thank you for the suggestions to improve the article Audrey McGinn. There are now two Wikipedia articles that link to it, so it is no longer an orphan, and I have added to the text about thirty or so links to other Wikipedia articles, so it is no longer underlinked. Therefore I am removing the multiple issues template you inserted. --Dylanexpert (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

@Rosguill: thank you for reviewing Kwabena Kwakye Anti and thank you for the advice. Will work on that. Kinvidia (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your input on The Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa. Could you perhaps let me know how many citations or what type I would need to remove the warning panel "This article needs additional citations for verification." In other words, some guidance on where it would be best to cite in the article. This is my first entry, so I appreciate any advice! Rexrunt (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rexrunt: Thanks for following up on this. For better or for worse, citing sources is more of an art than a science, and there isn't a hard and fast number of sources that are always "enough". More important than just the number of sources is the quality of sources: how much depth do they give to coverage of the subject, and how unbiased are they? Currently the article cites the website of the subject (not independent), and what appears to be an assessment of the project by a group (LANGTAG) that played a significant role in organizing the project. Thus, it would be good to have citations to sources that are more clearly independent, such as articles in a South African newspaper of record, or academic papers published by independent institutes. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks so much, that's great advice. I'll get onto it. Rexrunt (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Tower article

Hi May I ask why did you nominate the article I have created for deletion? There may not be enough sources online at the moment but it does not mean that article should be deleted. The construction is clearly in progress and once completed, Elizabeth Tower is a significant addition to Manchester's skyline. I took time to create it and even went to the construction site to take photographs, you just discredited my efforts. I will certainly be recreating this article if it gets deleted, it deserves to exist. Construction has just begun and I am certain more information about the project will follow and it's something I constantly keep my eye on. Michaelmazr (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Michaelmazr

@Michaelmazr: thanks for following up on this. I am a new page patroller, and it's part of my job to review articles that have been recently created and verify that they conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and if not, follow necessary protocol). Just because construction has begun does not mean it will be completed, and just because construction is completed does not mean the subject is notable. Moreover, it is not Wikipedia's role to write about things that will happen soon in the future, please see the relevant piece of Wikipedia policy, WP:CRYSTAL for more information. Finally, whether or not it is a significant addition to Manchester's skyline is irrelevant: the gold standard for notability is whether independent, reliable publications have written about it. The nomination has nothing to do with your abilities as an editor, and everything to do with the fact that the creation of the article at this time is contrary to Wikipedia's policies (unless more sources can be found). I am sorry if this has meant that some of your effort has been wasted––in the future, please make sure that subjects you write about meet the general notability guideline before you start writing so that you can avoid wasting your own efforts and those of other editors who will be forced to nominate the content for deletion. That having been said, if you are confident that the Elizabeth Tower will one day meet notability guidelines, we can also move the article to a Draft as an outcome of the deletion discussion, in which case your work would be preserved for that eventuality. signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Guajara (legendary Guanche woman)

He has not been shown 100 percent to be a fictional character either.--87.223.78.96 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Java (1813 ship)

Does Java (1813 ship) now have enough inline citations? Has six today.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: yep, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wes Phillips

Hello Rosguill,

I recently created a Wikipedia page for Wes Phillips, currently the tight ends coach of the Los Angeles Rams. However, I understand that you redirected the link to Wes Phillips' father Wade Phillips. I did not receive any sort of notification as to why, and it's taken several days for me to determine the reasons what happened. With over 12 years as an NFL assistant coach, including the last six as tight ends coach for the Dallas Cowboys, Washington Redskins, and now the Rams, I think that his contributions are significant enough to warrant his own page. I provided independent articles in links to verify the information in the profile. Other assistant coaches who do not have professional playing experience have Wikipedia pages, so I am curious as to why my page was specifically rejected. I will make any reasonable edits so that it conforms with Wikipedia standards, and I would sincerely ask you to reconsider your decision. Thank you, AUColonist — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUColonist (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@AUColonist: thanks for following up on this. The subject-specific notability guideline for American football, WP:NGRIDIRON, states that coaches and players are presumed notable if they have played/coached in at least one professional game in the NFL (and a few other leagues). However, it also explicitly says that this guideline does not apply to assistant coaches, which means that Wes Phillips is subject only to the general notability guideline, WP:GNG, which require a subject to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as its sole criterion (it would also be subject to WP:ANYBIO if Phillips has won a sufficiently notable award, but that doesn't appear to be the case). As for why other articles about assistant coaches may exist, it could be that they do meet GNG, that they were accepted when the guidelines were different, or that they were simply accepted by someone who wasn't paying that much attention–such is the nature of a project run by volunteers. If you like, we can move the article to draftspace so that you can work on it undisturbed, or you can try your luck with a different new page patroller–personally I feel that the subject still falls short of notability guidelines, but I don't think it's actively harmful or blatant promotional so I'm not going to try to keep getting the article removed if you think it's notable. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, even if I do not entirely agree with your reasoning. I do expect that there will be more coverage of Wes Phillips as he takes on his new responsibilities and works closely alongside his father. Could you please move my article to my sandbox, and I will keep refining it and will consider submitting it in the future? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUColonist (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@AUColonist: I've moved the article to a subpage of your userpage, User:AUColonist/Wes Phillips. Let me know if you need any further help. signed, Rosguill talk 00:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Redbird (band)

Hi Rosguill, I am removing the Notability tag that you placed on the Redbird page because the page meets the following WP:Music criteria:

  • #1 - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works: There are 7 citations currently on the page where each publication is notable enough to have its own page (including The Daily Telegraph and Allmusic).
  • #6 - Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians: all three band members are notable enough to have their own pages: Jeffrey Foucault, Kris Delmhorst and Peter Mulvey.

WP:Music states that a band is notable "if they meet at least one of the following criteria" and this band meets 2 of the criteria. Furthermore, each of their 2 albums have their own pages. Please re-nominate if you disagree. Thanks, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Fighter's History issue

Hello, Rosguill.

Just a moment ago, I saw you've flagged Fighter's History: Mizoguchi Kiki Ippatsu!! page as copyright violation because it copies the description of a video on YouTube. However, those paragraphs originated from Fighter's History page, which date back to at least April 2011. The video in question was uploaded around Feburary 2014. So I argue that it's the YouTube video that copied the contents from the Wikipedia page, not the other way around. --Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao: Thanks for looking into this. In the future, I would suggest contesting copyvios on the talk page of the article in question so that any admin evaluating the copyvio will see your comments. signed, Rosguill talk 04:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Filip Bandžak

Dear Rosguill. I do not nderstand your action to puut in the article the template copyvio because thetext can be used freely as stated in the article: "As of 7 January 2019, this article is derived in whole or in part from the official website of Filip Bandžak. The copyright holder has licensed the content in a manner that permits reuse under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed." Plese do not offend this article! I hope you accept the OTRS decision.Borgatya (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Borgatya: My mistake, I had never seen one of those OTRS tags before and was judging the article based on the lack of a clear CC license on Bandžak's personal website, where it says "all rights reserved". signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Tags on Bobby Love

Hi, I see you placed a couple of tags on the above-mentioned article I wrote. Putting aside the tone issue for the moment, I am concerned about the placement of the notability tag: the references I provided in the article pretty clearly show that he has been discussed multiple times in depth in independent published reliable secondary sources (any of which you yourself are welcome to read and verify), so I am wondering if you can explain for me your decision to place that tag. Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the tone issue, I wonder if the single use of the word "flamboyant" in the third paragraph is the reason you placed this tag, and if removing the word might not also justify the removal of the tag. I have gone over the article and tried to figure out what parts of it might not strike an adequately encyclopedic tone, and that word is the only thing I can think of. Is this true? If so, maybe removing the word would have been easier than placing the tag, getting me confused, and having to respond to my questions about why you placed it! BUT: if there are other words or phrasings that you feel would still need to be addressed, please let me know. I want the article to read well, and appreciate your thoughts on how I can improve it. A loose necktie (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@A loose necktie: Thanks for following up on this. Regarding the notability concerns, from the provided citations the two sources that have significant coverage of the subject are BoingBoing and Avant Garde. I read BoingBoing regularly, and while it is an entertaining website, I'd hesitate to call them reliable for anything other than hacker culture and related subjects–additionally, the tone of the piece was a far cry from investigative journalism and closer to "I think this person is cool on social media you should check them out" which gives even more cause for concern as to the verifiability of the content in the article. I wasn't able to find editorial information or any other indicator of reliability for Avant Garde–while it's possible that another editor may be happy to vouch for it as reliable, I didn't feel comfortable assuming that it was reliable myself. Thus we're left with an ok amount of coverage in two sources of dubious reliability––enough coverage that I don't think it makes sense to nominate the article for deletion, but still short of something that I'd feel comfortable approving without a second thought.
Regarding the tone tag, there's a few word and content decisions that seemed a bit unencyclopedic to me: the article uses quite a few archaic or unconventional word choices, saying that Love generates costumes or referring to his work as creations. Additionally, there's some rather trivial sounding content that is included, such as mentioning a "Certificate of Recognition" received by him (which, especially without an attendant citation, seems rather insignificant), or referring to his private collection as a legacy-building forum to inspire future generations of designers and artists. All together, I think it makes the article feel unnecessarily grandiose and advert-y (I don't have any specific problem with the use of the word "flamboyant"–that seems like an apt description of Love's costumes). signed, Rosguill talk 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Am glad you agree that "flamboyant" describes this person's work! I was having a hard time coming up with a better word for it myself. So let me move on to some other aspects:
With regard to the Certificate of Recognition: the citation for this is actually at the end of the paragraph in which it is mentioned. Since a number of claims followed it, and since it seemed like clutter to make a reference for each claim as it was made, I made a single reference at the paragraph's end for all of the claims, including, in this case, the Certificate. I realize that such certificates themselves may not be notable, but I included it in the article as evidence to corroborate the subject's notability claim. If you don't think it adds anything material to that claim or feel it makes the article less encyclopedic, let me know and I will be glad to remove it.
I have now addressed the use of the words "creations" and "generates", and have made three or four other tonal changes to make the piece read as less grandiose (though this is difficult, considering the subject matter). Please let me know what you think of the article's tone in its current state.
I have sent a message to the editors at Boing Boing to see if they can give me a sense of their degree of editorial oversight; for what this is worth, the author of the Boing Boing piece, Jason Weisberger, seems to have pretty substantial credentials, including having been the publisher of the magazine itself for 12 years. I will see if I can track down any additional helpful information about Avant Garde for you as well. Thank you for your guidance in this matter. A loose necktie (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@A loose necktie: I think that your edits have effectively addressed the tone issues (whether you want to keep a mention of the Certificate of Recognition is up to you at this point). I don't think it's necessary to reach out to BoingBoing (or any other publisher)–a better way to get an assessment of a source's reliability is to start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Update: I posted a question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding Boing Boing, and also contacted Boing boing directly to ask about their process for editorial oversight and error correction. The discussion at the noticeboard has been pretty supportive, and hasn't gotten any new comments in three days now. Three of the zine's staff, including, as it turned out, Mr. Weisberger himself (though I did not mention him in my inquiry), responded to my message, telling me that although they do not have independent editorial review, their writers are responsible for any content they generate and often have other staff members read over their work before publishing it. They also explained that these same editors are responsible for making corrections to their articles whenever a mistake is found, and regularly do this. This is not quite the same as having an editorial review board at the New York Times and having a page dedicated to publishing errors and corrections, but it is rather close— it shows that there is a routine of error correction at Boing Boing, which is a good sign of reliability. Given this and the response on the Noticeboard, I am interested in knowing if you think the notability tag might now be removed (or if you think we should wait for a few more days to see if anyone new enters the discussion— this seems unlikely to me, but you never know). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks again! A loose necktie (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
From Boing Boing directly: Mr. Weisberger: "Each editor is responsible for fact-checking their own work, all corrections are posted directly on the article in question when we are notified of a necessary correction." Ken Snider, system admin: "Further, I count over 500 links to Boing Boing content on Wikipedia, if that helps set your mind at ease regarding our reliability as a source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2FBoingBoing.net Thank you for supporting the Wikipedia project with your time and effort!" and Rob Beschizza, staff editor: "There’s no formal fact-checking process, but editors are expected to be responsible for carefully checking their own work. Moreover, when we produce original reportage, we will edit one another’s work (or that of contributors) in a traditional manner. Most posts are short summations of items elsewhere, but we have a substantial audience of readers (not all of whom appreciate us!) who are eager to fact-check us. We are very responsive to corrections, clarifications and requests to update items with statements, responses, and new information. Many articles contain posted corrections; I did one on a post of mine a few days back: https://boingboing.net/2019/02/12/drivers-in-lynnwood-contend-wi.html?utm_source=moreatbb&utm_medium=nextpost&utm_campaign=nextpostthumbnails " Those are responses from three of the seven staff members listed on their wesbite's staff list— the publisher, the system admin, and one of their five staff editors. A loose necktie (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@A loose necktie: All of that sounds quite encouraging, I'd say I'm ok with removing the notability. Thanks for all the additional work you put into this! signed, Rosguill talk 02:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jolyon Coy

Hello Rosguill. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jolyon Coy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims coverage in RS, claims having acted in multiple notable films and TV series . Thank you. SoWhy 08:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Nash

Hi Rosguill, I am not happy you're considering the Kelly Nash page for deletion. I have six references on that page, How many more did I need? That's the same number as my Olivia Dekker page and I've been waiting to get approved for two months. I did add that she does host the NHL Version of Quick Pitch. How much more do I have to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightforrm (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dwightform: the issue isn't the number of sources, it's their quality. As I wrote in the deletion discussion itself, none of the provided sources cover the subject in-depth; interviews do not count as they are not independent. The MLB.com profile is not independent, as it is affiliated with her employer, and the coverage of her almost getting hit by a baseball is trivial–it says nothing about the subject worth including in an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether or not you find these explanations convincing, I would further suggest that you make any additional comments or discussion on the deletion discussion page, so that other editors can see it to and so that your opinions aren't ignored. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carnage (comics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carnage (comics). Legobot (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Rosguill,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We meet again!

Hey there! I noticed that you recently helped curate the article In No Great Hurry 13 Lessons in Life with Saul Leiter and in doing so placed a COI tag on the article. That tag may or may not be appropriate in this instance, but when placing it you are obligated to immediately begin a talk page discussion on those aspects of the article which you feel reflect the conflict of interest of one of its authors and saying what would need changing to get the tag removed— the COI tag is not meant to indicate "Hey, this article has a COI!" it is meant to say, "Hey, this article has a COI and I've explained how to fix it, please see the talk page!". Do you suppose you would be willing to begin that talk page discussion (or else remove the tag)? Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thank U, Next

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thank U, Next. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Fanboy & Chum Chum characters

Hi there, I don't plan to revert your redirect here, since I think that content belongs in the main article, but primary sources can absolutely be used for uncontroversial content discerned by watching the primary source. We don't typically need secondary sources for plot descriptions or for cast lists, and for character descriptions. "Luke Skywalker is a young man who works on a moisture farm on Tattooine" doesn't require secondary validation, it's something you can easily verify by watching Star Wars. The General Notability Guideline is a bit of a high bar for article forks as well. If an article gets too large, it's not unreasonable for a fork to be created, and even if there is a general principle that notability is not inherited, I think there's some flexibility there. For instance, if SpongeBob SquarePants is notable, do have to separately prove that an episode list is independently notable? No, probably not. It's part of the notable show and we ran out of space in the main article. Do we have to prove that Season 12 is independently notable? No, probably not. What if S1 got tons of press but S12 didn't--are we going to have incomplete season articles? That doesn't make much sense. Anyway, sometimes we just try to ease large pageloads by distributing the content across various articles. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ari Mannis

Hello thank you for your review of the Ari Mannis Wiki. I saw you are trying to have it deleted for lack of recognition/sources but I want to help keep this page up as he is a favorite comedian in Los Angeles, opening for Theo Von. I wanted to ask you how you would get it approved. I thought about taking off a lot of the local stuff and shortening it. Thoughts?Romanstuff (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Romanstuff: thanks for following up on this. The issue with the article is that it doesn't have enough citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. If you can find more examples of independent coverage (for example, a profile in a magazine with editorial oversight, but generally not interviews). Once you've found enough such that you think the general notability guideline is met, head over to the actual discussion and let us know what you've found. signed, Rosguill talk 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Darwin Ramos

Hello. I was surprised to discover tags on the page Darwin Ramos because there is no explanation about it. I do not understand why you did it, but I am here to learn and grow. The article I wrote is well sourced, honest and seemed to be in-line with similar articles about people like him on this platform. Regardless, you clearly felt I did something wrong, and I respect that. I would, however, genuinely appreciate some help to be able to improve it with your suggestions. Hoping to hear from you, and, sincerely, I appreciate the opportunity to get better at this Postulateur (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Postulateur, currently all of the citations cited appear to be directly affiliated with the campaign to canonize Ramos and other primary source documents. While this may be useful for supporting certain claims made in the article, they do not contribute to the article's notability; in order for a Wikipedia article to be accepted on a given subject, we need to see that independent sources have taken notice of it and written about it at length. I've seen quite a few of these "canonization in progress" articles and they generally don't survive a deletion review. If and when Ramos is actually canonized (or if you can otherwise find independent sources about him), I would consider notability guidelines to have been met. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, Thank you for your response. I am just a little bit surprised. The sources used are independent because the authors wrote their books before the opening of the cause. At the other hand, the notability of Darwin Ramos is awesome in France since his death, not because the cause of canonization. Postulateur (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, The books used for the article are only biographies. They are historic, not promotion. Postulateur (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muse (disambiguation)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muse (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Would Appreciate Your Insight

Rosguill, you recently deleted an article I wrote about an entertainment personality/industry innovator named Jeff Beacher. Of course I'm bummed to see it deleted, and frankly, I do not understand why you did it; but I am here to learn and grow and to become a welcomed and valued member of the wiki community. The article I wrote, IMO, was well sourced, honest and seemed to be in-line with similar articles about people like him on this platform. Further, the article was receiving positive support and improvements from several other established wiki editors. Regardless, you clearly felt I did something wrong, and I respect that. I would, however, genuinely appreciate some help/tips to be able to republish it with your suggestions. Hoping to hear from you, and, sincerely, I appreciate the opportunity to get better at this! :-) (side note - I see you're into translations - have you checked out the Pilot ear buds from Waverly? They auto translate langauges into your ear, like real life Babel Fish!) DarthBuffet (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@DarthBuffet: thanks for following up on this. Unfortunately I don't remember the specific details of that article. Looking in the deletion logs (Special:Logs), it looks like it was deleted for WP:G11, unambiguous advertising. What this essentially means is that the article 1) was insufficiently neutral in tone and phrasing and 2) largely cited sources that are obviously non-independent or otherwise unreliable. Of these two criteria, the latter is much more important, so let's focus on that. Could you provide me with links to sources you used so that I can reevaluate them? signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: For real, thank you for responding as you have. I am just checking in quickly today, but I will respond more completely tomorrow. Really appreciate your willingness to help me. Back soon! :-) DarthBuffet (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: - I am just sitting down now and responding to a few of the editors who have been helping me with this. One pointed me to the editor who executed the deletion named Anthony Appleyard. It appears that it was, as you accurately predicted, the tone and phrasing of my article that encouraged AA to delete it. However, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to review some of the references I chose (from sources like Entrepreneur Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, BET Online, Forbes, The LA Times, Rolling Stone Magazine, Las Vegas Magazine, New York Times, etc). What is the proper way for me to share some of these links with you? DarthBuffet (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
DarthBuffet, If you can just paste links here that would be fine. You can also make them prettier by adding a single bracket before and after the url, so [http://www.google.com] becomes [1]. If we had been having this discussion while the article still existed then it would have been more appropriate to use its talk page, but that's moot. Although, given AA's comments, was a version of the article restored? If so we should continue the conversation there. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Yeah, I was really happy to see he restored my article. I just logged in and saw his reply to me where he said he deleted it because he felt it read like an advertisement (which was in no way my intention); but I was hoping he would have given me some insight so, as I've expressed, I can get better at this and avoid this situation with future articles (I want to keep contributing and editors like you and a few others have made me feel welcomed and supported!). Not sure what I should do now as the article has been restored. I did notice a code that is appearing at the top of the article that I'd love to hide/remove just to make my article look cleaner. Do you think that would be okay? DarthBuffet (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
DarthBuffet, I've removed the text you're talking about––that text is the markup for a speedy deletion tag, wrapped in <nowiki> tags so that it doesn't actually add a live tag (I think it's just default when you restore an article). At any rate, looking through the article, the biggest issue is the promotional language. You should avoid phrases like He is credited as creating over $100 million in value for his clients, which read very promotionally. You should also generally avoid listing clients (with the occasional exception of people notable for fashion or other fields where one's clients really are the primary source of notability). It would also be good to cut sentences like As a media personality, Jeff Beacher has been featured on television, radio, newspapers and in magazines from the lead, which says very little about the subject while still coming off as promotional.
As for the sources, part of the problem here is that you actually may have too many sources, most of which are very trivial coverage of the subject (that is to say, it mentions the subject for a sentence or two but does not provide the significant depth necessary for sourcing an article). It's better to have 3 good sources than 20 mediocre ones. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: GAHHHH! This is SO HELPFUL!!! Do you think it would be cool if I went in now and followed your lead and deleted what you suggested, and slimmed down the resources? DarthBuffet (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: I deleted the sentences you suggested I removed. I will go through all of the links and follow your lead and trim that down. I really appreciated your comment, "It's better to have 3 good sources than 20 mediocre ones". That is a very good lesson. I had thought the more the better. This is very very helpful and insightful. DarthBuffet (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You redirected Triad International to Adnan Khashoggi, with an edit summary of "redirect to Adnan Khashoggi, company does not appear to meet notability guidelines independent of its owner (WP:ORGCRITE, WP:GNG). Consider adding Triad International related content in a new section of the article about Khashoggi".

Was this redirection discussed anywhere, before you made it? If so, could you point me to that discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: There wasn't a discussion, that was my unilateral decision as a new page patroller based on the sources provided in the article and the lack thereof in my attempted search online. That having been said, the source you found does appear to be a stronger indicator of the subject's notability. signed, Rosguill talk 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marc-André ter Stegen. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Nilüfer Yanya) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Nilüfer Yanya.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Great work on this article and the one about the album!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MainlyTwelve}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Nilufer-yanya-miss-universe-album.jpeg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unclear citations - some guidance appreciated

Hello Rosguill, You recently left a message regarding unclear citation styles on Margaret Doyle (announcer). Many thanks for reviewing it, but I'm puzzled. The citations were either drawn from the National Library of Australia's (NLA) newspaper citations on Trove created specifically for use of historic newspaper content on Wikipedia. The other citations (from memory) were all constructed using Wikipedia's citation template. The NLA are making some changes to their online platform, so I will follow up with them in case it's no longer compliant. But I'm at a loss to understand why citations created using Wikipedia's own template would be a problem. Any guidance would be appreciated. Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Coastal.culture.vulture, thanks for following up on this. Looking at the article right now, virtually all of the citations appear to have broken url values and are displaying error messages in addition to improperly formatted markup text. Is this not the case for you? signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, thanks for replying. When I created the page, there were no errors in either the preview or the published changes. I have a tendency to over reference, something I try to restrain, so take particular care that all is well. When I look at the page now, the majority of the links are broken and there are multiple error messages. A staff member from the National Library has been in contact and will look into it from their end if needed, but that doesn't explain why the problem is evident for citations using Wikipedia's template. As a first step, I'll have a look at my operating system, try editing using different browsers and devices to see if I can narrow it down to my own environment. Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Coastal.culture.vulture, looking at the history of the page, it seems everything was fine until Tony1 replaced a bunch of the url content with gibberish? Not sure if that was intentional, they don't look like a vandal. Anyway, just re-add the correct urls from an earlier version of the page and you should be good to go. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, a change by another editor (how ever well meaning) would be a far simpler explanation. I'll replace the urls over the weekend, and keep a close watch on the page in the days that follow. Many thanks for your help with this. I really appreciate it :) Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ben Reid article

I added links to Guardian articles in the Ben Reid article as you suggested. Leo Sammallahti (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Arrow. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Blackstone Battery Codes, Rosguill.

Mu301 has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Multiple issues.

Please contact Mu301 for any further query. Thanks.

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

mikeu talk 06:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mu301: why did you unreview the article? I nominated it for AfD and then marked it reviewed per the flowchart. signed, Rosguill talk 07:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. I see that it has been now been undone. --mikeu talk 18:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harbhajan Singh Khalsa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harbhajan Singh Khalsa. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Revolutionary-yiddishland-brossat-klingberg.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of photographers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of photographers. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Motion picture content rating system. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germanic peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about your close

Can you clarify if the close you made here was for all contestant names? Thank you. Nihlus 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This is in relation to an RfP closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC Closure Review for RuPaul's Drag Race. An admin there states that the RfC applies to the birth names of transgender performers — and not that the civilian names of all drag performers are now to be forbidden on Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Springhill Avenue shooting 1987

While doing some work for the New Pages Patrol, I came across Springhill Avenue shooting 1987 and I fully agree with the comments you made on that article's talk page. Would you consider an AfD to be in the offing? It seems that the article's author tried to use this not-so-notable incident to write an article on much bigger issues. Note that Springhill Ave. is only mentioned once in the text. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Doomsdayer520, an AfD does seem appropriate at this point. Had the initial editor (or someone else interested in writing articles about the Troubles) responded to the original comment, I think we could have gone straight to rename/merge, but I don't really have the knowledge or bandwidth to do that myself so unfortunately deletion seems like the best option. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

James Seehafer

Hi Rosguill, Thanks for establishing the redirect page. As per your request, I can contact you when I find more comprehensive information about Seehafer to expand on his biography. You also noted a concern that many sources on the original article were self published, but I see no evidence of that—am I missing something? best regards, --JerricaB (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

JerricaB, by self-published sources I mean sources that don't have clear editorial boards or policies.
Ok now I understand. I'll keep this in mind as I search further; thanks.--JerricaB (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Michael B. Paulkovich

You tagged the article saying "There do not appear to be enough references currently present in this article to demonstrate notability." Looks to me like all facts have accompanying citations, can you be specific as to what more it needs? I'd like to improve it if it really needs to be improved. Thanks. Gagitsel (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Gagitsel, notability on Wikipedia is a separate concern from verifiability, although they're obviously related to an extent. While several citations have been provided in the article, they can be sorted into two different categories: 1) citations to articles that are by Paulkovich, as opposed to about Paulkovich, and 2) citations to images of articles about Paulkovich, but without sufficient information (either in the article or in the images) to clearly identify the sources and the authors of these articles. Category 1 does not contribute to notability because they are not independent of the subject, whereas Category 2 could contribute to notability, but without clearer information about the sources, it's difficult-to-impossible to assess whether these sources are reliable, and thus we cannot tell if they contribute to notability or not. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I've added citations for notability and verifiability, I'll remove the tag you added if you agree (or you can remove it if you'd like). Thanks! Gagitsel (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Gagitsel, thank you for your attempts to provide more sources. Unfortunately, the additional sources you provided appear to suffer from the same problems as the previous ones: two are just examples of things that Paulkovich wrote, and the third is a press release, which is not a reliable source for notability. Instead of these sources, I would suggest looking for reviews of Paulkovich's books. signed, Rosguill talk 23:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The reasons I added links to those articles: (1) the articles provide a brief bio of Paulkovich at the end, thus bolstering verifiability (something you asked for) and (2) the articles demonstrate that he does in fact write for the journals claimed in the WP article, further bolstering verifiability. Gagitsel (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Gagitsel, I didn't really ask for verifiability, I asked for citations demonstrating notability. Verifiability is also important, but it's not currently an issue for the article. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gavin McInnes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gavin McInnes. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Coral Gardens incident) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Coral Gardens incident.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Hughesdarren (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:WikiLeaks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WikiLeaks. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion Ally Prisock

Hello,

You reviewed an page of mine so I was wondering if you could help me. My page on Ally Prisock has been nominated for deletion. For the life of me I do not understand why as it is sourced and she is a professional soccer player. How do I get an article that has been flagged as Nomination for deletion to not be deleted?

Cheers

@Cetteuqap:, it looks like the reason it's being deleted is because it doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. While you've pointed out several reasons why Prisock may be an important or good player, ultimately she is still a rookie that has not actually played in a professional game (the guideline says that players need to have actually appeared in a game, just being signed to a team is not enough). Until she has actually done so (or until you can find additional coverage of her such that she meets WP:GNG), she doesn't meet notability guidelines. While it's extremely likely based on your description that she will meet the guidelines at some point in the future, that hasn't happened yet, and it is not Wikipedia's place to write about things that are likely to happen. In other words, you wrote the article WP:TOOSOON. I would suggest asking that the article be draftified or userfied–that way while it will still be removed from the live encyclopedia mainspace, you won't lose your work, and if/when she does finally play in a pro game you can publish the article. signed, Rosguill talk 16:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hi,

I've just been notified that the page 2019 Dutch provincial elections has been reviewed by yourself. What does it mean for the article? and what does the reviewing process consists in? I'm curious, I know, but I've added a lot of numbers on the page and I'm afraid that one of them might be wrong (though I double-checked). Kahlores (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Kahlores, you can read about the full reviewing process here, but a short overview is that reviewing is something we do for new articles and just means that the article has been checked for 1. violations of Wikipedia policies (copyright violations, WP:ATTACK pages, violations of WP:BLP, etc.) and 2. notability, i.e. verifying that the article's subject has received enough real-world coverage to justify a Wikipedia article. It does not mean that we've double checked every single claim in the article, although reviewers are generally expected to read through the article and flag it with relevant templates if there are any issues. Once an article has been reviewed, it's released to search engines for indexing (i.e. it becomes searchable). We actually have a rather long backlog right now, so if this sounds interesting to you I'd encourage you to apply!
All that having been said, I actually didn't review 2019 Dutch provincial elections, but rather the redirect you created, Dutch provincial elections, 2019. That's a much faster process, where basically we just check to make sure that the redirect isn't actively misleading or harmful and then approve it, change the target, or nominate it for deletion as appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 02:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I always wondered but was afraid to ask, and didn't know where exactly the reviewing process was organized. I may apply, but elections are my only real domain expertise, so we'll see. Kahlores (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Kahlores, for what it's worth you do learn a lot on the job. In hindsight, I was totally unqualified when I was first given NPP permissions, but now I'm comfortable reviewing new articles on most topics. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

WP:AFD/USA reads 'This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area.' If a AFD is already in some state deletion sorting, it does not go here too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: yeah sorry about that, I was using the delsort tool so I didn't see the warning on the page. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The Episode Summary is mine

Hello. Thank you for you effort in copyright materials on Wikipedia. I saw that on 26th April 2019, you removed all the episode summaries from List of Mo Dao Zu Shi episodes. However, those summaries are all written by me. I have proof of the drafts in my own sandbox, and I also sent screenshots to my friend via Whatsapp. If you need proof, I will be happy to provide it to you. I am not aware that Cinemur have copied my summaries. So this is actually the other way around. I will be undoing the removal of the summaries. Please contact me if you need any more information. Thank you. --ZoeZoeZoey (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)-

"proto-Protestantism" or "pre-Reformation movements"

Hi, I am interested in your input on Talk:Pre-Reformation movements. If you could leave a brief statement as to which page name you prefer, that would be great.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_4&oldid=903822047"