Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Please comment on Talk:Andy Ngo

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

Thank you for the feedback

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

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

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

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

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

We got a problem

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

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

Speedy deletion tagging

Hello, Rosguill,

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

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

Deletion review for Instana

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

Undo Change for Bollards page

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

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

Please comment on Talk:CESNUR

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

Please comment on Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey

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

Help about creating a new page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Rosguill;

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

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

Kool London and Kool FM

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

NPP Mentorship

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand

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

Fii3rd

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

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

Barnstar of Integrity

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Veridia

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

New article

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

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

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hard-shell taco

Nice job on the article. Good idea to expand the section in Taco to a full-blown article as the hard-shell version has enough significance to warrant its own article. Thanks! Geoff | Who, me? 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Glane23, thanks! My next challenge is figuring out how to translate it to Spanish...I'm not sure what the best name for this style of taco would be. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that, most of the time, tacos dorados is commonly used in Mexico and parts of the American Southwest for tacos made with crisp-fried tortillas. But of course that literally means "golden tacos." Still, and all, if you used that term most Mexicans would expect the crisp-fried, as opposed to soft, tortilla used for the taco. Gustavo Arellano is my go-to source. Geoff | Who, me? 20:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Glane23, yeah, the problem is that Tacos dorados is currently used as the title for the esWiki article about taquitos. So I could try to convert the English article to a section of that article, or I could create "Tacos dorados estadounidenses" or something similar. signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seth Rollins

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth Rollins. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

The Original Barnstar
This is for your work on the Civilization state article. I really didn't think the article could be fixed. I've been in something of a slump for some time now, but reading your changes has given me so much more faith in Wikipedia. Thank you. -Darthkayak (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Propaganda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Propaganda. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Harleen

whats with the "Harleen" redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:5880:12B0:D155:342C:8076:BBFE (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you're asking me. If you're wondering why the page was converted from a redirect to a set-index article, see this discussion at WP:RFD. signed, Rosguill talk 05:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

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

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Rosguill,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Fool N Final / Fool & Final

The former was a cut & paste move which I have now reverted. I assume the plot summary in the proper article is the same one you had issue with? PC78 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

PC78, yep, looks the same [1]. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of LGBT YouTubers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of LGBT YouTubers. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent messages

Hey SpringProof, I saw you left a message here and then removed it without a comment. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. signed, Rosguill talk 01:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for the confusion. I was debating if I should work with an adopter or just wait until I had enough mainline edits to start the anti-vandalism school. I decided that the anti-vandalism school is gonna take some time to get to, so why not have an adopter now? Anyway, my original message still stands: Hi! My name is SpringProof, but you can call me Jack. I would like to be your adoptee! I love languages, copy-editing, grammar, and would eventually like to be a New Page Reviewer! I live on the West Coast, so I think our times hopefully could work. I'm a super new editor so I think I have a lot to learn. I don't have quite enough mainline edits to start the New Page Review school, but doesn't mean you can't be my mentor, right? I look forward to hearing your response! :) --SpringProof (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

SpringProof, I'd be happy to help. I think you're right that given how new you are, jumping straight into NPP school would be premature. Get a few weeks of editing under your belt, learn the ins and outs of basic editing and interacting with other editors on talk pages, and then we can move on to a more formal instruction in how to patrol articles.
If you're not sure where to start editing, I would highly recommend taking on tasks that get listed at the Help Out section of the community portal. This gives you an endless supply of short tasks to do, as well as being a good introduction to maintenance tags (which are an important element of new page reviewing). It's also a good introduction to how big Wikipedia is.
Some other parts of Wikipedia that you may also find interesting, and which will be useful if you intend to go on to become a new page reviewer are:
  • The teahouse, a general purpose help desk for new editors who have questions about editing
  • Requests for comment, one of the main ways to attract editors from across the website to a discussion. I would suggest reading through some of the older listings before jumping into a conversation yourself.
  • Articles for deletion, very important for new page reviewing. This link will take you to the general information page about deletion processes; be sure to familiarize yourself with them before participating in an actual AfD discussion (you'll find links on that page to current discussions as well).
  • Redirects for discussion, the redirect-specific counterpart to AfD.
There's a lot of other noticeboards too, but these should be enough for now. . If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, either by messaging me here on my talk page or by adding {{u|Rosguill}} to a comment on a talk page more relevant to the question you have (the ping only works if you sign the message, so don't forget to sign your post). signed, Rosguill talk 02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Meteorologist

Hi:

What do you mean by primary sources? The sources are from varied countries and are not witness account or events. Most references in it are from official meteorological sites, how can you be better than that? How can sources from the US NWS, UK Met Office and Météo-France can be considered not good enough sources?

Secondly, what categories would want to add there? The article is the main article in category:Meteorologists and is it that category that is related to other categories. This is the normal way of putting categories.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Pierre cb, While statements from the NWS are generally reliable, their Careers page is a bit too close to the subject to be a good source for an article. That having been said, I misjudged some of the sources when I first looked at the article, and no longer think that this is a problem that requires a maintenance tag. signed, Rosguill talk 05:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
That is why I have put more than one country references. Pierre cb (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Pierre cb, That source variety helps, but my concern was more that our usage of the sources would be a form of original research.
re categories, I'm not an expert on adding them but I feel like it's rare that I come across a well-fleshed out article that doesn't have several. I see that Biologist has the category Category:Science occupations, which probably fits here. signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, but I do not see others. Pierre cb (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"The page has been reviewed" - then what???

@Rosguill: I just received the message "The page [page title] has been reviewed". It appears that the page has been deleted, and is redirected. I'm new to this stuff, so could you please enlighten me to what has happened? I gather there has been some problem with the page, but I received no notification prior to this, and was not able to deal with whatever problem the page had before it went missing. Regards, KaldeFakta68 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

KaldeFakta68, I'm not entirely sure which article you're talking about, but based on your edit history I'm guessing it's Warsaw Summer Jazz Days '98. It looks like another editor converted the article to a redirect because the subject didn't pass the general notability guideline. Converting an article to a redirect is allowed as a bold edit, at which point other editors can contest and revert the change. The previous revision of the article is saved in the article's history.
For my part, in order to review the redirect I simply verified that the redirect is pointing to a valid target; my reviewing the redirect is not a vote one way or the other on whether or not the article should be kept. I would suggest going to the talk page for Warsaw Summer Jazz Days '98, starting a discussion there, and pinging the editor that made the change (check the page's history). But first, read up on notability in general and the subject-specific notability guide for music so that you know what you're discussing.
Let me know if you have any other questions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for your detailed reply. This was the article in question, sorry for not including that info. I have read the notability guidelines in question, and I must admit that I find them hard to relate to. There are several criteria which in my view leave room for arbitrary decisions. I'm not very comfortable contributing under those conditions, so I may just drop following up on the matter.KaldeFakta68 (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer of the year

New Page Reviewer of the Year
Congrats on being chosen as 2019's reviewer of the year! Your username has been permanently engraved on the cup. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
For reviewing an incredible number of new articles on the English Wikipedia, including it seems many many tens of them that I've created or made new redirects to. N2e (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please go to the "Textus Receptus" Talk-Page

@Rosguill:, shalom. There is currently a discussion on the Talk:Textus Receptus, in the section The Meaning of the term "Textus Receptus", on whether it is appropriate to add a Disambiguation Page under the title "Textus Receptus." Your advice would be welcomed and invaluable here, as you are more experienced in this field than any one of us here. Please leave your suggestion there, or else in the Request for Comment on the same Talk-Page. Thanks! Davidbena (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Davidbena, I'm not sure that I'm actually more experienced than the other editors involved, but I'll add my thoughts to the talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arrowverse

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

Please comment on Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 842 - References Required

Hello Rosguill: just responding to your comment on my talk page about the creation of the above and reliable sources. Do you require me to put individual references to the main Oxyrhynchus Volume pages for all the statements? Essentially everything stated in the article comes directly from The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Volume 5 (available at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/oxyrhynchuspapy00socigoog), to which I've already provided the referenced page numbers. If this is required, I can easily sort it out. Tyvm! (Stephen Walch (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC))

Stephen Walch, while that may be useful in cases where it can be used to support a particular claim, what is more important is providing additional citations to secondary sources that are not currently cited. We should be referring to primary sources only in cases where the information being cited is totally straightforward and descriptive, or in cases where we want a quotation (see WP:PRIMARY for more information).
From looking at the manuscript, it seems like this is a bit of a complicated case, as the manuscript includes both the manuscript itself, and commentary from Grenfell and Hunt. While the manuscript itself is obviously primary, Grenfell and Hunt's commentary is in a sense both primary and secondary: secondary with respect to the literal contents of the historical manuscript, but primary with respect to the history of the manuscript's discovery and its evaluation in academic literature. Thus, ideally the Wikipedia article should primarily rely on sources written after Grenfell and Hunt, which can discuss the subject with an appreciable amount of distance. More recent sources are further preferred, as we want the article to reflect the consensus of reliable sources in the field today, and I think it's safe to say that archaeology has changed significantly since the beginning of the 20th century. signed, Rosguill talk 02:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill: duly noted. Though this is more papyrology than archaeology (two different, though related, disciplines that don't exactly work together), and most discussions on P. Oxy. 5 842 has concentrated on the text rather than the actual papyrus (to which I was wanting the new page to do). Nevertheless, I'll get the secondary sources and sort out the references. Thanks for your assistance! (Stephen Walch (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC))

Request

Hello! I was wondering if you could take me on as a NPP school student. I have read WP:NPP (and the articles that are suggested in there) already, and I am familiar with Twinkle through counter vandalism work. I have graduated from a CVUA course with Girth Summit, and am now interested in expanding my area of interest on Wikipedia. Thanks for considering this, Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 15:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, I'd be happy to. I should be able to get you started on the program sometime later this week. In the meantime, here's some scripts that you should install that will help with NPP and related work.
  • Since you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history
Thanks, I can't wait to start! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 18:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, I found a spare moment to get this started, and have created your instruction page at User:Puddleglum2.0/NPP School. Please read the instructions there and answer the provided questions when you feel ready. There's no time limit, feel free to take your time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nikolay Kedrov, Jr.

Hi Rosguill; I recently removed a redirect from the Nikolay Kedrov, Jr. page; it was pointing to the page of his sister, Lila Kedrov. You restored the redirect, stating (quite correctly) that there are no obvious reliable sources to be found online. But I *really* hate this redirect. What's his sister got to do with anything? If a redirect is appropriate at all, I think it should be to his father, Nikolay Kedrov, Sr, who was also a composer. But I would suggest removing the page entirely, since the subject appears to be less than noteable. (I don't want to take further action myself without consulting you.) JBritnell (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

JBritnell, I think the reason it points at the current target is because that article has more information about Nikolay Jr., as it lists his life span and profession vs merely naming him. It's fairly common practice to redirect relatives to articles mentioning them, especially if it's unlikely that the relatives will ever be independently notable. That having been said, all information about Nikolay Jr. appears to be unsourced (you may be able to find something on a linked article in another language, but at a minimum Russian Wikipedia doesn't have anything on him), so if you think it should be deleted you should take it to WP:RfD (using Twinkle to file the RfD will be significantly easier than following the manual instructions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. It seems his music is performed (there are some Youtube videos), so I won't rush to RfD. I'll have another go at finding something out about him first. JBritnell (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer review cohort

Hi, Rosguill - can you withdraw me from the cohort exercise? I’ve had some health issues flare-up on Wednesday and I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed right now. I do apologize but it wouldn’t be fair to the others if I’m functioning on a single cylinder and 6 are needed. Atsme Talk 📧 09:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, all good, hope you feel better soon! signed, Rosguill talk 09:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, take care :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jo-Ann Roberts. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The Exodus Movement

That's confusing. Did you read my posts at Talk:Jexodus? That organisation was rebranded as The Exodus Movement. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, my bad, I was only aware of the discussion at Talk:The Exodus movement, I'll self-revert. signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. There's been a lot of confusion over this, including one editor whose questions are strange at best. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, yeah those questions could probably be removed or archived with a NOTFORUM justification, but if everyone is happy to ignore them then taking action might just make things worse. signed, Rosguill talk 18:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Joe Sanchez

Thank you for closing, and for restating the policy against legal threats. I would have reported the editor making the threat if they were a registered editor, or even if they were an unregistered editor with a history at the IP address. However, there is no point on reporting a one-time IP address for being a stupid blustering fool. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for the vote of confidence. Another reason to skip reporting in this case is that it's not really clear that the IP made a real legal threat, but rather just threatened to "go public" and "put a dent in Wikipedia". signed, Rosguill talk 00:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
If you aren't sure whether something is a legal threat, it should be reported to WP:ANI to let administrators decide whether it is a legal threat. In this case, as we said, it wasn't worth reporting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

White Croatia

Thank you for taking this dispute. Balkan disputes can be tough, and it is sometimes necessary to sit on the parties (e.g, collapsing out-of-line comments), which I see you just did. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for marking the discussion status, I'll try to remember that next time. signed, Rosguill talk 02:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beyoncé discography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beyoncé discography. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Cause and Effect Tour Elimination

It's so simple to delete in less than a minute an article that I spend hours to create, right?. For users like this is why I don't cooperate more on Wikipedia. --Marcetw (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marcetw, I'm sorry you feel that way, but content on Wikipedia needs to comply with guidelines and policies (in this case, WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. For what it's worth, redirecting an article is not deletion: provided that you can make a case that the subject meets Wikipedia notability standards, we can instantly restore your contributions to the article. I would suggest raising this issue on the redirect's talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme Talk 📧 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Disappointed

Disappointed to see you back off RfA. I hope it just means you didn't have time right now as opposed to being reluctant to do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I don't think I backed off, unless you know something that I don't. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see now, Ritchie jumped the gun a bit on starting the RfA and wanted to double check that it was a good time of day/week. We're rolling now! signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
So happy to see all that this was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I'm also excited to see this one go ahead. +1 — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate all the support, although I've gotta say Barkeep49, waking up today ready to start my RfA and seeing a notification that someone started a section called "Disappointed" was a bit of a shock haha. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah you've got me beat for disappointment of waking and seeing that your RfA had been transcluded and then withdrawn. Sorry for any stress I caused. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Rosguill! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Rosguill!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_7&oldid=1145932959"