User talk:Rosguill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Rosguill, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Question 27 August 2018

Hey Ros. I have a question about editing Indian articles. What should I do if a Native seems deadset on reverting the article back to the version he made, even if grammatically incorrect, like absences of the word 'the'? Bopcicle22 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Bopcicle22:, this would fall under the generic edit-warring guidelines at WP:EW. Try to reach out to the person that is reverting your edits on either their Talk page or on the Talk page of the article they are active on and resolve the issue there. Make sure to be polite, and be careful to ensure that you're not inserting any controversial edits during the procedure (e.g. if you were changing both grammar and the date of an event listed in an article, make these changes separately). If you're absolutely certain that your edits are good-faith improvements and the other editor doesn't respond but continues edit warring, take it to the admin edit warring noticeboard, WP:AN/EW. Rosguill (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Rosguill. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term non use, (it is a 'use-it-or-lose-it' access) the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Swarm ♠ 00:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Useful scripts for NPR

I just wanted to share a list of useful scripts for New Page Reviewing with you that I have been drafting for the next newsletter, as you can probably make use of them straight away:

• WP:Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
• User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to User:Rosguill/common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
• User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (I recommend 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
• User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is revdel annoying and time consuming? Install this script and deal with copyvios in the blink of an eye. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your Diff Ids and you can drop them into the script Popups.
• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
• User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Welcome to the team. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Peek A Boo Shahwaiz

Thanks for your advice. I want to know what type of content should I add to my article so that it will meet criteria of wikipedia. User talk:Lillyput4455

Hey @Lillyput4455:, another editor already objected to the speedy-deletion procedure so the article is not in danger of being deleted. My original objection was that the article didn't satisfy general notability guidelines. In order to avoid other editors from coming to the same conclusion, try finding more citations for the article in reliable sources--at the very minimum, you should have at least two to satisfy the basic notability guideline. Rosguill^talk 18:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Gut voch!

Would love your opinion of best communities to reach out to, for help on Radical Yiddish Newspapers/journalists, I can imagine Judaism, Socialist, Anarchist, Journalist portals would be useful, Any others? Shushugah (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shushugah: To be honest, I've had very little experience contacting users through various community portals (other than the centralized Village Pump, which probably isn't the best place for this). Generally, if I'm working on an article I just tag any Wikiproject that seems appropriate on the talk page and hope for the best. In addition to the ones you mentioned, you could try Poland/Russia/Lithuania/etc. projects as relevant to the subject in question. For individual journalists, you can try WP:BIOGRAPHY, and if they're a woman, WP:WOMEN, WP:WHIST and WP:WWR. There used to be a Yiddish Labor Bund Task Force but I'm afraid it seems to be pretty much defunct now. Rosguill^talk 21:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted your edits on Ahmed Emad Eldin because I didn't think the content was promotional. If you want to talk about it, talk to me on my talk page, or else I probably won't see it. Beasting123 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Predrag Keros

I just received your comments on my article about Predrag Keros. Being the end of the day here please bear with me. I will read articles about improving the writing and will correct errors. But for starters I have a follow up question. You wrote that my claim about Keros being "renaissance man" may violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy. If mentioning that is a problem I will delete it but I'd like to point out that there is no such claim in article. There is a claim however that Keros was often called "renaissance man" and it is supported by independent media article provided in notes. But, as I said, I will read the manual articles ASAP and correct errors. But please let me know about does "renaissance man" really violates the policy because it's a quote, not a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmajdic (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Dmajdic:, thanks for following up on this. My reasoning for taking issue with the "renaissance man" claim is based on the guidelines at WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE--namely, that because Keros isn't particularly well known (at least in the English-speaking world), content in the article about him should be limited to things that are directly related to his reason for notability (in this case, his contributions to the field of medicine). It is also arguably a violation of WP:PEACOCK, as saying he's a renaissance man doesn't really tell us much about him, while also presenting him in a very positive light.

As for whether or not this is a "claim", I intended to use the word "claim" to mean "any statement of information about a topic, regardless of whether it is true or not" (you can see similar usage in WP:NOCITE, and elsewhere that citations are discussed on Wikipedia). I didn't mean to imply that the claim wasn't true, but ultimately my objection to it is based on it not being particularly relevant, not on it being factually inaccurate. Rosguill^talk 23:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, I cut out the "renaissnce man" from the article. Also I made a lead section very short, sticking to the major reason of creating an article about Predrag Keros. I want to stress that this article has no intention of promoting in any kind subjectively a person in his benefit since Predrag died this year. Although ordinary people might not know who Predrag Keros is (even in Croatia) in encyclopedic sense I think he is valuable internationally. As stated in article his classification method is used globally. I have much more material on dr. Keros but first article was rejected because of too much information that was not of encyclopedic value. So now I wanted to start really short and do the things right and according to wikipedia rules. I have only most important and basic info now in the article so I would need help on some of notes I got:

1. This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. - I have few sentences now and wonder if this still stands.

2. This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. - My guess is this is about "renaissance man" so is it OK to remove this note?

3. You commented that list of awards should be moved into a separate section from Biography so I did that but Derek R Bullamore made a rollback so I don't know what now. Do I make separate section or not?

Thank you for all the effort. Dmajdic (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dmajdic: thanks for putting so much effort into this.

1 The article still has some grammar problems--I wouldn't worry too much about them if I were you, at this point that's a job better left for an editor that is a native English speaker. I may get around to doing that myself later.

2 There's still some puffery in the sentence "Professor Keros was awarded some of the most significant awards and distinguished titles". Ideally, this would be reworded to something like "Keros has received the following awards and distinctions". Once that's gone you should be good.

3 I think the other editor likely just saw that you removed all the tags at the top and reverted based on that. To avoid this happening again, split up your edit commits so that you're only changing one thing at a time. That way, controversial stuff can be contested while improvements are left in.

Additionally, I'd suggest looking through articles of other doctors and scientists to get an idea of what is considered relevant encyclopedic content. Generally, after the lead, you'll want to have a section on biographical information (birth, education, work, death), summarizing what positions they held and significant discoveries made during that time. Afterward, include a section on publications, and one on awards and titles. Avoid statements like "To this day generations of students remember his clear, logical and interesting presentations ". Your goal should be to report what Keros did in his life in a matter-of-fact matter, let his accomplishments speak for themselves.

If you have any questions about improving the article moving forward, I'd suggest you raise them at Talk:Predrag Keros, that way other editors can more easily see what has been discussed, and can also comment. Rosguill^talk 18:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, thank you very much for this. You shone some rays of hope with your comments. Wikpedia editing is no joke, but I hope to learn with time. You are very helpful. Dmajdic (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Yitzchak Sheilat

Rosguill, thank you for your comments on the article on Yitzchak Sheilat. I have made some additions and corrections to help improve the article. I would be happy to hear any other specific comments/suggestions you have regarding problems in the article. Thanks again! Cm613 (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Predrag Keros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Abusive tags

I revert your tags on Nico, 1988. It appears to me that you contribute very little to wikipedia, adding no historical content, no prose, apart adding tags at the top of articles which seems to be your hobby. This isn't productive to my view. BTW, you don't have any wp:consensus for tagging at Nico, 1988. Woovee (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way @Woovee:. I'm actually part of Wikipedia's New Page Patrol, whose job it is to go through new pages to mark them for improvement so that other editors can more quickly get to that, and to protect against spam, as by reviewing articles we release them to be indexed by search engines, making them accessible to the wider public. Nico, 1988 was actually looking fairly good as articles go, and I approved it to be a reviewed page that would thus show up in google search results. In hindsight, the reorganize tag was a mistake--I assumed that it was inappropriate to start with 'Cast' after the lead, but upon reviewing MOS:FILM it appears you are correct, in the absence of a plot section.

Moreover, per WP:BOLD and WP:OWN there is no need to seek consensus before adding tags, particularly if there hasn't been a controversial exchange on the page already. I'm not going to further dispute your removal of the tags, because as I already said, the issues were fairly minor, and your contributions were of a higher quality than what I generally going through the new pages feed. The one place where the article could use some improvement would be replacing the quote in the middle of the Production section with a paraphrase in keeping with WP:TONE. It's a minor thing, so I'll leave it to your discretion.

If you need any further evidence of my contributions to the encyclopedia, see my user page and WP:GF. Rosguill^talk 16:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Overtagging

Hi Rosguill, could you consider tagging only the main issues with articles you review through NPP? You added five to Mayakka Temple, Chinchali and six to Ashish Thomas (pastor). Template:Multiple issues § General notes has some notes on this and the guide at WP:NPP says in a couple of places not to "overload the article with every template that could possibly be germane". Neutrality + advertisement, for example, is probably a redundant pair. Listing this many issues on one article probably isn't helpful to readers, editors who work on the top two or three issues are also likely to fix others in passing, and it could well come across as hostile to the authors. You added cogent notes for each of those articles' creators, so the maintenance templates may not be necessary in that regard. › Mortee _talk 22:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mortee: Thanks for the advice, I'll be more careful going forward. Rosguill^talk 23:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Great to have you helping out with the backlog. › Mortee _talk 23:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of page EETAA 722

Hello, thank you for your note regarding the proposed deletion of the EETAA 722 page. You missed the ref for this page. It refers to an easily verifiable source that I recopier below.

[1].

This source doesn’t come from LinkedIn but is a published French book that relates directly to this school EETAA 722.

Your concern for strong and reliable sources is perfectly valid. This page has one. Let me know if I can be of further help in this matter. Thanks LeTerry60614 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeTerry60614: thanks for following up on this. However, one citation may not be sufficient to justify the subject's notability. Note that the general notability guideline stipulates that subjects must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The book cited may very well count as one (although it has yet to be demonstrated that its coverage of EETAA 722 is significant), but ideally we could find one or two more sources to get the article to meet the guideline. Rosguill^talk 14:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeTerry60614: Hello Rosguill, added two new sources referring to the school EETAA 722: the first is from a recent main french newspaper Sud Ouest. The second is from a french published book «La chanson de Rosalie » written by Jean-Bernard Papi. Thanks

^ José Maigre (1987). Les écuyers du ciel : arpètes et mécanos au service de l'Armée de l'Air (in French). ISBN 9782704805648. LeTerry60614 (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Broadcast, unknown-unicast and multicast traffic

Hi, you tagged Broadcast, unknown-unicast and multicast traffic with {{Multiple issues|{{notability|date=September 2018}}{{original research|date=September 2018}}{{technical|date=September 2018}}}} I have put some work into dealing with the issues identified, but I am reluctant to remove the notability tag without checking with you first. If you could have another look that would be great. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: looks good, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. Rosguill^talk 17:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Rohini Sindhuri

I'll add a reference, let me know it's quite sufficient.Aatoturk (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aatoturk: While the additional source is appreciated, I'd suggest you read through the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. We should strive to have multiple reliable sources for every article on Wikipedia. An additional issue with the article is that it really doesn't give sufficient context to understand what happened. Despite my having read the article multiple times, and all of the attached sources, I still don't feel like I understand who Rohini Sindhuri is or why any of this is significant. Rosguill^talk 04:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Giovanni Morassutti

Hello Rosguill, I would like to edit the page Giovanni Morassutti that you propose for deletion. Is there something in particular that you suggest to add or remove in order to met our criteria for inclusion ? Would you rather suggest to merge the page with the article Art Aia - Creatives/In/Residence ? Please let me know. Thanks Doratig —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doratig: the general notability guideline requires articles to have citations to multiple, independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject. Currently, the only citations that are in independent reliable sources do not provide in-depth coverage of the subject, and googling the subject's name didn't return any obvious in-depth coverage. If you can find in-depth coverage at reliable sources, by all means remove the deletion proposal and add the citations to the article.

Content directly related to Art Aia-Creatives/In/Residence can be merged into that article. However, I would caution against simply merging the entire articles, as this would likely lead to a case of WP:UNFOCUSEDRosguill^talk 22:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Is there a section and/or content on article Giovanni Morassutti that should be removed in order to avoid the lack of obvious in-depth coverage ? Doratig

@Doratig: The issue isn't any one section, but rather the article as a whole (or more accurately, the article's subject) that fails to meet WP:GNG. I would suggest that you read through the general notability guideline, as well as the subject-specific guideline WP:NBIO. If you think there's a way to demonstrate notability as defined in those guidelines, provide the appropriate sources and we can consider the matter closed. Otherwise, the entire article is subject to deletion due to not being sufficiently notable.

In the interest of transparency, I will point out that WP:PROD is a relatively fast-track deletion process, and that you can actually block it immediately simply by removing the tag. However, if you do so without providing a good reason (in this case, without demonstrating the notability of the subject), I or another editor will simply re-open the deletion proposal using WP:AFD, a slower and more involved deletion process that requires input from multiple editors. Thus, I would ask that you only remove the PROD tag if you are confident that you can demonstrate the article's notability. Rosguill^talk 23:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill . I am reading through the general notability guideline, as well as the subject-specific guideline WP:NBIOand will add more appropriate sources in order to demonstrate the article's notability. I will remove the PROD tag but could you please check to confirm that the matter is closed ? Doratig —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the article's progress. Do note, however, that decisions at Wikipedia are made by WP:CONSENSUS. As such, I am not the final arbiter and can't make any guarantees beyond my own actions. That having been said, if you provide sufficient references the article's notability is unlikely to be challenged further. Good luck hunting for sources! Rosguill^talk 23:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC) @Rosguill Thanks Doratig

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work reviewing new articles. I had a look at a sample of your work and it looks pretty good. Keep up the good work! Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: for stubs like SocietyOne, tags like the 'lead too long' one seem necessary. I saw a bit of this 'find a tag that fits' thing that I also did when starting out reviewing. If there isn't an obvious need for the tag, just mark it as reviewed. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Planetboom

Help to contribute wikipedia but not in the way you are doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJFBR (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Planetboom

I do not agree that you have added the deletion template to the article since it is a new band and there is not much information to add more information with more references in another way instead of adding the elimination template that has more years in wikipedia and More experience helps us improve the article instead of adding removal templates. The only thing that you are doing is that we do not contribute more in wikipedia because our work will be in vain. But that is not how it is doing, since other users have contributed. Have a great day. Blessings I hope you can help with your experience for better on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJFBR (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@GJFBR: thanks for the comment. I'd suggest that you read through Wikipedia's general notability guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While you are correct that Planetboom is new and thus may not have much coverage, what that means is that we should wait before creating the article, until it is guaranteed to be notable by wikipedia's standards. If you are very certain that the band will have sufficient coverage to be considered notable in the future despite not having such coverage at this time, you may want to propose moving it to a draft in the deletion discussion so that you don't lose your contributions. Alternatively, if you already have reliable sources that are independent demonstrating significant coverage of the subject, I would encourage you to add them to the article and to mention them in the deletion discussion, thus demonstrating notability and saving the article. Rosguill^talk 17:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra Kollontai

Salve Rosguill, scusa se ti scrivo in italiano, ma ho visto sulla tua pagina che un po' conosci la mia lingua. Se tu dovessi rispondermi, fallo pure, ovviamente, in inglese: per me leggerlo è estremamente più semplice che scriverlo. Ti volevo ringraziare di nuovo per i tuoi eccellenti interventi sulla voce su Alexandra Kollontai e per aver fatto il copy-edit del mio povero inglese. Volevo però fare anche un'unica osservazione sulla maniera in cui hai corretto l'introduzione all'ultima citazione, nella sezione 'Political retreat and attitude toward Stalinism'. Tu hai scritto: "It bore the title The Soviet Woman — a Full and Equal Citizen of Her Country, and emphasized the advances made toward the equality of women in the Soviet Union, despite any misgivings she may have held toward the country's political direction". In effetti, io avevo scelto la citazione per il modo in cui si concludeva: quel richiamo alla "natural obligation [of woman] – that of being a mother bringing up her children and mistress of her home", che mi sembrava assolutamente fuori di posto sulla bocca di una come la Kollontaj. Ti volevo quindi suggerire una formulazione diversa, che mi sembrerebbe più calzante, del tipo: "It bore the title The Soviet Woman — a Full and Equal Citizen of Her Country, and, after emphasizing the advances made toward the equality of women in the Soviet Union, concluded by a statement about women's natural destiny as mothers and housewives which was the negation of Kollontai's own history [or/and, of her former radical feminist ideas]".

Mi rimetto comunque al tuo giudizio e, personalmente, non modificherò oltre l'attuale stesura. Scusami davvero per la sfacciataggine (= effrontery) e per il disturbo. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW: È corretta la frase: "The next place Kollontai tried to speak and write against the war was Sweden"? O non ci vorrebbe un "where" in più?

Ciao Jeanambr, veramente quando ho fatto i redazioni sulla parte di "Soviet Woman", non ho letto bene la citazione. Vi che ella ha scritto che l'URSS fatto miglioramenti da statura dei donne a principio della citazione e non l'ho lettato più. Adesso, leggendolo ancora bene, vedo che tu stai corretto. Propongo che la parte dopo il titolo della composizione leggerà "In which she praised the Soviet Union's advances of women's rights, while simultaneously emphasizing a view of the role of women in society at odds with her previous writings on women's liberation".

Grazie mille per le parole gentili, per la questa correzione, e per i vostri lavoro eccellente na pagina di Kollontaj. Spero che non ho fatto troppi errori scrivando in Italiano. Rosguill^talk 17:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Per il tuo italiano, vai tranquillo: un po' rudimentale, ma perfettamente comprensibile! Quanto alla nuova formulazione che hai proposto, ovviamente sono d'accordissimo. Saluti.--Jeanambr (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

SC Pick Szeged in European handball

Dear Rosguill,

I have some question for you. First of all, I have spent a lot of work hours on this new article. I think this an important page, for those, who fond of handball. (I am such a man. I think it is an important page, for one, who curious about the backround and the road to European achievements. I would like to ask for such articles of football teams, please. Before, you will ruin it, which as a modell of some football teams in European appearance. For example, please see that, before you decide: Category:Hungarian football clubs in European football, Category:Football clubs in European football, for a bigger field of view.

I hope that, I did not find deaf ears in your person. I wish you some more good work in Wikipedia.

Yours Sincerely, Kov 93 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kov 93: Upon reviewing the categories in question, it seems that there is a precedent for the article you created. I don't entirely understand why this content isn't just included in the main article for the team, but deletion discussions for other articles seem to establish that this is the convention. I'll remove the deletion proposal. _signed, Rosguill^talk 06:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ron Kikinis

Rosguill, thanks for your comments on the Ron Kikinis article. I've added references, sections, and changed wording to assume a more neutral tone. I'm deleting the issues comment and appreciate your further feedback. Mwhalle (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC) mwhalle

@Mwhalle: The article looks good overall. However, looking at the attribution information for the photo added to the article, it appears that as the likely photographer you may have a conflict of interest with the subject (if so, please follow the instructions at WP:COI). Otherwise, the Education section could use footnotes, but beyond that the article is in good shape. _signed, Rosguill^talk 06:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Pennine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have corrected the error on Obinna Onyebuchi mouma. I have removed the unverified claim you spotted..

I have corrected the error spotted, particularly the one raised above. Fabregado (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fabregado: Thanks. You may want to drop in to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obinna Onyebuchi Muoma to comment on the ongoing discussion. Currently, there's a consensus forming that the article is not ready for publication, with different editors arguing for either deleting the article or moving it to draft space (I have voted for moving the article to draft). You should also consider first reading through Wikipedia's general notability guideline and the subject-specific notability guideline for creative professionals so that you're familiar with why the article has been nominated for deletion. _signed, Rosguill^talk 17:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Kalikow

Hi! Thanks or your feedback on this page - I guess my question is what should I be looking for to make it more robust? I don't have a conflict of interest - I just saw one of this guy's films and thought I'd do a page for him (I did email his agent afterwards to get a pic though - I don't think that's a conflict though, or is it?) Thanks in advance for your help! Midwifecrisis (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Midwifecrisis: Thanks for replying and clearing up the possible COI. The issue right now is that the article's subject doesn't appear to pass Wikipedia's general notability guideline nor the subject-specific guideline for biographies of creative professionals (WP:CREATIVE). The easiest way to demonstrate notability is to provide additional references to in-depth coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Currently, none of the article's citations discuss Kalikow in depth (other than the professional bios at movie databases, which aren't considered independent), merely mentioning him or one of the projects he worked on. Nothing substantial turned up in a google search either. If you think I missed something, by all means add the citations and remove the PROD tag. Alternatively, if you can't find anything, but want to return to this later or think that Kalikow's work will eventually make him notable in the future (WP:UPANDCOMING), you can move the article to the draft space so that it's not subject to deletion and you don't lose your work. _signed, Rosguill^talk 17:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Ok, thanks for your help! I'll take a look and see what I can find. At the end of the day, if it doesn't meet guidelines, then that's the way it is - I just like his film! Midwifecrisis (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Russian film articles

RTY9099 currently is the user with the most ()30) unreviewed articles in the Special:NewPagesFeed. They are referenced to Russian sources, which I need Google Translate to read. The subjects appear to be notable. The articles themselves however, leave much to be desired. I am not confident that their author has sufficient competency in English to be writing these articles alone. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? Thanks,--Vexations (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: Ладно I'll take a look _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: Done. Most of the articles passed notability, as many of them were of Soviet/Russian actors that received the highest prize for artistic merit in the USSR/RSFSR/Russia. I tagged borderline cases, and nominated a few (particularly some non-notable films) for deletion through AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Om Murti Anil

Hi! Rosguil Thanks for reviewing the article I wrote on Om Murti Anil.You have added my article on deletion page according to your comment I made all of the changes by removing Honor, source of youtube and entire website run by Anil OM.In your comment you added that Anil OM is not cited in google scholar and the name was conflicted with Anil Om, who is a researcher in Richmond, Virginia. Both of them are not same only their name matched with the article that I wrote about Anil OM which stands for the first name as capital 'OM' which stands for Om Murti and last name is Anil. If you search using name with Om Murti Anil than you might get all results related with that person.Please, Let me know If there are any other conflicting references regardaing with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshanpoudyal0 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roshanpoudyal10: Thanks for pointing out that mistake. Part of the issue, however, is that Google Scholar searches for both orders of the name because names are generally listed last-name first for research papers. I just double checked the Internet and scholar searches and got back the same unnotable results–I wrote it wrong in the AfD form but the issues still stand. The article still needs citations to independent coverage in reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Tonegawa: Middle Management Blues

Can you please explain why you added "lead section may be too long for the length of the article" to Mr. Tonegawa: Middle Management Blues - it actually seems shorter than most anime articles. Ozflashman (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ozflashman: I thought that perhaps the information about the anime could be moved to its own section in the body, but it's a very minor issue and you can definitely remove the tag if you still disagree. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There is more information about the anime in the Anime section, but I think it's useful though to mention it in the intro. Ozflashman (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Juan Wauters

Hi! Thanks for reviewing the article I wrote on Juan Wauters. I just added an additional five citations for verification. I'm quite confident that the band meets WP:BAND. If you google ["Juan Wauters"], there's a multitude of diverse sources from music magazines, daily newspapers and other reliable sources that are independent of the artist. Were there any sentences in particular that you wanted to see more citations for? Tracklan2 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tracklan2: Looking at the article now, I don't see any edits that have been made since my tagging the article. That having been said, I also don't really see anything that needs more citations, so I'm thoroughly confused as to what happened between my tagging it in the first place and your missing revision. _signed, Rosguill^talk 03:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Citations 3, 4, 6, and 10 are the new ones that I added. The sentence "The band released albums on Hardly Art and Captured Tracks," was originally without citations so I added two citations to that sentence. Do you think the stub is sourced well enough to remove BLP sources? Tracklan2 (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tracklan2: yep, looks good! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Spacely (Artist)

What qualifies as "important" enough to have a wikipedia page? Paaiiggee (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Paaiiggee: Articles are expected to pass the general notability guideline. In this case, because the subject in question is a rapper, WP:CREATIVE and WP:NMUSIC provide additional criteria that can be used for demonstrating notability. While you should read the linked guidelines, a brief summary would be "the subject of the article needs to have been covered in-depth by multiple, independent, reliable sources, or otherwise won a notable award or have been involved in creating a creative work that is a significant cultural monument widely covered by reliable sources". Simply being listed on iTunes and Spotify is not enough. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Rosguill, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for thanks (Nathaniel Buchwald)

Rosguill: How nice to get your thanks on Nathaniel Buchwald! Most of the notices I get are nasty-grams from self-important fellow Wikipedians, who seem over-focused on rules, un-focused on content, and almost never-willing to fix what they criticize... You made my day! --Aboudaqn (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: It's kind of funny, because as part of new page patrol I get a lot of people accusing me of being too focused on rules over content (usually while they attempt to pass off a personal website as a reliable source, lol). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Interesting... I grew knowing how to put together reliable information (thanks no doubt to work as a journalist and editor), so I find Wikipedia basics fairly simple and intuitive. Based on what I've noticed after more than a decade on Wikipedia, mostly I create or add to biographical entries and follow a general format: Lede, Background, Career, Awards, Legacy, Works, See also, References, External sources, etc. I then cross-link with closely related articles. While some are stubs, I usually have more than 3 major sources even for a stub. What I find challenging are: poorly worded Wikipedia technical instructions that range on anything from how to use Talk (e.g., should I have used "Reply" at the beginning of this reply or another format like "User"?) and guidance on how to deal with fellow Wikipedians when we disagree. The vast majority of my work receives a "pass" from fellows. What irks are the people who zoom in from a narrow viewpoint (e.g., what should appear under "See also") or grammar (e.g., whether to use "the Perche" or "Perche" when referring to a medieval county in France). To me, Wikipedia is the new Encyclopedia Britannica (now written online by people hardly more qualified than your average Wikipedia). Accuracy is paramount. Bottom line, these self-appointed patrollers seem narrowly and technically focused. They seem proficient in technical aspects of using Wikipedia and not in content. They start by _not_ reading content; rather, they pick on nits for which many seem to have "bots" patrol for them. (Example: No other mention of person place or thing on Wikipedia – like that is the new item's fault!) Waste of time... [Sigh!] Did not seem to share woes; clearly, you seem like a level-headed: perhaps you have further thoughts to share? Aboudaqn (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: I can't say I've had that experience, but that's probably because I have mostly stuck to wikignoming on things that pop up in New page patrol, RFC, or the community portal. I've been considering starting a new article soon, but it's about an organization that is primarily involved in Israel/Palestine activism so I'm a little scared as to what sort of hate mail I'll be opening myself up to haha. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Rosguill Understood: I'd be happy to review before you post, as many of the biographies I post are about people involved in some kind of controversy. Nathaniel Buchwald was clearly at least a "communist sympathizer" (starting in a time when anyone who was "cutting-edge" and educated was reading Marx)... I just posted about Dan Georgakas and had someone delete the page for lack of citations (I got delayed) -- typical Wikipedian these days, who would rather spend energy on cutting on someone else, rather than checking to see whether s/he could have added the citatoins...! --Aboudaqn (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: haha thanks for the offer. I actually went ahead and published it, Canary Mission if you want to take a look. Also I may have already been aware about your issues keeping the article about Georgakas published :D._signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Rosguill Admirably neutral: well done! --Aboudaqn (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamophobia and Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamophobia and Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-Polish" Khmelnytsky Uprising (RfC) - Thank You

Talk:Szlachta#RfC_on_"Anti-Polish"_Khmelnytsky_Uprising_2

Thank you for your time, input, and comments. - Exxess (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canary Mission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Europaplein metro station (Original Research tag)

Hi, you added a review tag to something translated from the Dutch article, with the sources from the Dutch article. That was noted when the English article was expanded. Could you have a second look? Thanks! Reidca (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Reidca: I see now that the confusion arose because when the stub was split into lead and body, information which was attributed to source 1 was put in the body, but the footnote was left in the lead, leaving some info in the body unattributed. I'm not fluent in Dutch so it would probably be best for someone else to add footnotes as appropriate, but there shouldn't be any content at risk for deletion by WP:OR. I'll swap the tags now so that no one does that by accident. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The redirect for Lucky Charm (Matt "Guitar" Murphy album)

G'day Rosguill, thanks for reviewing the album Lucky Charm, and appreciate you saying my edits were in good faith. I've been (or like to think I've been!) very careful and deliberate with my Wikipedia additions.

The other Matt "Guitar" Murphy album Barkeep49 reduced to a redirect was The Blues Don't Bother Me!. I did the same fixes (removed Discogs, added references to Rolling Stone etc), and User:Xevus11 deemed it sufficient to just categorise the page as Stub, instead of doing a redirect. Could the same be done for Lucky Charm instead?

I spent more time reading WP:NALBUMS, and the other justification I could see was the page would be "unlikely ever to grow beyond stub" so it "may" or "should" be merged into the artist's page, but not must. I'm unsure if this applies here, given the article has more information and references than most of these, his other albums are not redirects, and that it already had more than just a track listing.

Thanks for your help, this is a learning experience for me, and I want to do the right thing. Working on the new page patrol I'm sure you've developed a sixth sense for things like this. Cheers --RubenSchade (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@RubenSchade: thanks for all the effort you're putting in. Looking at the last revision of Lucky Charm (Matt "Guitar" Murphy album), while it includes citations to Rolling Stone, these articles are primarily about Matt Murphy, not about the album. At the end of the day, the general notability guideline is the gold standard of what is considered notable enough to get its own article, and it says that you need multiple references to in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Subject-specific guidelines like WP:NALBUM are there to provide an idea of what sorts of things are likely to have the wide coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, even if they don't at this very moment (for example, baseball as a sport is very meticulous about publishing statistical records for every little thing players do, so WP:NSPORTS recognizes that any player who plays at the professional level is likely to generate enough coverage to get an article). If you can find articles specifically about Lucky Charm, or that discuss it in depth, that would be enough to justify having an article for the album. Honestly, I disagree with Xevus's evaluation of the other article, which appears to be in essentially the same situation, but it's not really my business to second guess other new page patrollers._signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for taking the time to explain, that makes sense. I can see now the issue was my conflating artist notability for album notability. I'll reference the album on the artist page instead, until I can find more substantive sources to back the album itself.

Thanks also for explaining your reasons in the edit summary for the article too; too few people do that. Cheers! --RubenSchade (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES

Hey there. I hope you're enjoying doing NPP. I saw you recently put a notability tag on an Irish secondary school. Most secondary schools are treated as notable and a quick Google search confirmed this school exists. While WP:OUTCOMES (and in this case WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) is definitely not a notability document it can help to inform NPP decisions and so I thought I would highlight it for you in case you weren't already familiar. No doubt our paths will cross again soon in reviewing as they did here and in the above section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Hey, thanks for the tip. Although reading through the linked supplement, it seems to be a bit self-contradictory, saying first that Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. but then in the RFC summary that Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that second bit is a some WP:WEASIL because basically OUTCOMES isn't a notability document and shouldn't be treated as such and is/was aimed more at small schools in places that might not have sources. That's why I referred to the Google search (which was in addition to the sports results on that page). The truth of the matter is that secondary schools are considered notable and the people at WP:WikiProject Schools who do a lot to keep school articles from falling into a morass of disrepair act like that standard is true. I think it highly unlikely that page would be deleted at AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

My DYK? Nomination

I have now addressed your concerns here: Template:Did you know nominations/Horatio Seymour presidential campaign, 1868. Please respond to me whenever you are able to do so. Futurist110 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Canary Mission

Hi, I'm Dan Koehl. Rosguill, thanks for creating Canary Mission!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please submit proper categories

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Osula Julian

Hi Rosguill, I see you tagged a stub I created for deletion saying he isn't notable. Here are a few reports on him from veritable sources :

Business Day

Punch

Thisday

Thisday

This is an individual whose business has the presidents and the richest men of Nigeria as his customers. I created it as stub, hoping other editors as you would help expand it not putting it up for deletion.Buzzy anslem (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Instant payments

Dear Rosguill, thnk you for your comment. I've reviewed the instant payment page (hopefully) addressing the issue you mentioned. Could you please provide me a feedback? Kind regards. Nicola Caione (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nicola Caione: thanks for following up on this. I went back and made some further edits that I think address the original issues. However, I think that the lead still needs to be rewritten to provide perspectives other than just the EU/ERPB. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thank you too for the contribution, the page looks better now to me. Now I'll work on the lead section as you suggested.

The examples mentioned have been taken from all the continents that have an instant payment solution in place: US, EU, India, Japan, Australia. Please considr that the ERPB definition is accepted worlwide: I provide you as an example the summit that is going to be held tomorrow in N.Y.: [1]. It has the official ERPB definition in the main page.

May I ask you a contribution on another page? It is the Draft:TARGET_instant_payment_settlement, an instant payment solution provided by the ECB. Little by little I've improved the text, but it is still under review.

Some good hints would be very appreciated :-).

Thanks in advance. Nicola Caione (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nicola Caione: If the ERPB definition is accepted worldwide, just reword the title so that that is made clear (and provide sources if appropriate). As for the other article, it seems like the primary issue is a lack of neutrality. Avoid using phrases that emphasize that the subject is particularly good, such as TIPS infrastructure uses innovative technical solutions and the application will be scalable enough to support the expected high volumes of instant payments (it can process a peack of 2000 instant payment per second and an average of 500, which is equivalent to 1.8 million of transactions per hour).. Instead, just list the system benchmarks (more or less the text in the parentheses in the above quote) and refrain from commenting on whether it's "innovative" or whether this performance will be sufficient (unless you have clear sources indicating that demand on the system will be lower than the projected processing rate). You can also probably cut the "Objectives" section as it mostly just restates information elsewhere and arguably gives undue weight to the ECB's advertised ambitions as opposed to its actual performance. You may also want to read through WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PEACOCK to get a better idea of Wikipedia's neutrality policies and guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thank you for the example and the links, I'll use them to improve the neutrality.

Regards, Nicola Caione (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

re: Szlachta

That seems about right. Well, as long as they is no disruption of the article itself, I don't care (much), through WP:NOTFORUM might be a useful reminder. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

General St. John Desmond Arcedeckne-Butler

You query his notability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide for further guidance. Shipsview (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shipsview: Noted. I've removed the tag, but you may want to consider rewording the lead to make his rank more obvious, as it currently gets a bit lost due to Butler's long and unconventional name. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Soc.org.nonprofit deserves to be restored

Ah, the arbitrary nature of Wikipedia editors. Soc.org.nonprofit didn't have enough citations and didn't merit being on Wikipedia, but Alt.atheism, Talk.origins and Alt.sex do? My page had more citations than MANY other of the pages that are listed on the Wikipedia List_of_newsgroups. And, of course, now the page will never grow with more contributions - Rosguill has seen to that! This is why the number of Wikipedia contributors continues to drop. - Jcravens42^talk 01:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)