User talk:Rosguill/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Please comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Country data New Caledonia. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Choral Synagogue (Drohobych)

Hello, some weeks ago you stated that this article lacks sufficient citations. I gave a statement about that on the relevant talk-page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Choral-Synagogue_(Drohobych)), but nobody seems to bother. Maybe you would be so kind to tell me which statement is unsourced (please read the given source before you answer).--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wanfried-Dublin, I marked it as needing more sources because the entire Architecture section has no footnotes, and 2 sources is essentially the minimum amount of sources for a page to meet notability requirements, especially if one of the sources is not available online and thus of minimal use to readers (offline sources are very much allowed, but it's nice to be able to provide online literature for readers as well). What's more, the Ukrainian language version of the article has many sources, so it didn't seem like a tall order to request additional citations.

Having read your comment on the talk page, I would just add that you shouldn't take the "Low importance" thing personally or let that get you discouraged––"low" is the default rating when assigning an article to a project, so unless I'm personally very familiar with a given subject I generally leave that as the set rating. What's more, many WikiProjects are aware of how this works, and specifically go over new articles listed as low in order to update them with a more accurate evaluation, although that may not be the case if the articles you work on are not supported by active WikiProjects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, thanks for your response. But what causes some problems is your statement 2 sources is essentially the minimum amount of sources for a page to meet notability requirements. You may have noticed that I work on the German wikipedia as well, and there I have created more articles on (Ukrainian) synagogues, which I would like to create in English as well. For some synagogues there is only 1 reliable source, which are the books: Heaven’s Gates. Masonry synagogues in the territories of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.' and Heaven’s Gates. Wooden synagogues in the territories of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.' by Maria and Kazimierz Piechotka. (There are 2 new books from Sergey Kravtsov about synagogues in Wolhynia that I consider to obtain too). So if I cite these well researched books and no other source (especially online sources, which might not be available at all) will more sources be required?--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wanfried-Dublin, I think it depends on how much is actually in Heaven's Gates. The two sources thing is primarily a rule of thumb. A synagogue, and especially an old synagogue, is unlikely to be terribly controversial, so I as a new page patroller would not be overly concerned that relying on only one source would cause neutrality issues. The issue then is whether enough had actually been written in the book to establish notability. I would suggest including actual quotes from the book to demonstrate the quality and depth of coverage. I can't guarantee that such an article would make it past AfD (especially without even seeing the source or the hypothetical article), but I think it's worth a shot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, thanks. As these books are definitely the best source available (and in English too), I will use them for further articles (and try to include other sources from the internet where they are available in English or German).--Wanfried-Dublin (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirect patrol

Hello and thanks for reviewing several redirects I created recently. I wonder if it might help you to request a bot to auto-review certain types of uncontentious new pages, such as those called Foo (disambiguation) which consist only of #REDIRECT [[Foo]] and some templates. Yes, an editor full of beans could sneak in a #REDIRECT [[Foo]] {{text|poop}}, but no reader will see that. Certes (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Certes, haha I was actually about to propose that myself. I'm a software engineer so while I haven't built any Wikipedia bots yet, I think I can actually do this myself once I've read through some documentation. Other examples of uncontroversial redirects include redirects to biographies with varying usage of initials and full names, redirects that vary only in their usage of diacritics, etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It's amazing what bots can do. Today, one even managed to appeal its block. Certes (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing the redirects I created! Breawycker (talk to me!) 06:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Romania

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for providing R tags on some of the countless artist-to-record label redirects I've created. They've been serving as a reminder for me to actually use those tags more often. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Article review - awaiting your reponse

Dear Rosguill, thank you for your review of List of fact-finding reports on human rights in North Korea. I have written a more detailed message to you on the talk page of the article. I look forward to your reply there. Thank you! (talk) user:Al83tito 8:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, thank you for your kind response. I left you a follow-up message recently, in the same talk page of that article. Could you please take a look when you have a moment? It should only take a moment or two. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 5:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(to be more precise, please see there my message dated Nov 1st. Thank you!) (talk) user:Al83tito 5:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm very confused. Did you delete the article I wrote fir Bill Maher's special?? Halfire101 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Three Worlds Theory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Three Worlds Theory. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eleni Malandrinou

Hello Rosguill. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eleni Malandrinou, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: can easily be redirected to her daughter's article per WP:ATD-R. Thank you. SoWhy 08:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Bill Maher special

I'm very confused. Did you delete the article I wrote fir Bill Maher's special?? Halfire101 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Halfire101, not exactly. The article's subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus, I redirected it to the article for Bill Maher, as I explained in the edit summary. You can revert this edit by clicking undo in the history, but I would caution you against doing this unless you can actually demonstrate the article's notability. Prior to my converting it to a redirect, the article had six citations. Citation #1 is HBO's hosting of the special (not independent or significant coverage), #3 is a press release published on Broadway World (not a reliable source, not independent), and #2, #4, #5, and #6 are database entries (not reliable or significant). Rotten Tomatoes often has links to significant coverage (in the critics reviews section), but in this case the only article isn't actually even a review of the piece, it's a Haaretz piece on comedy specials more broadly and doesn't have enough coverage to establish notability on its own. Examples of significant coverage would be full length reviews, or academic papers that discuss the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Halfire101 please add comments here, not on my user page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever I guess

In comparison the the other similar entries, I just dont understand why you chose to do that. I modeled what I wrote after the other entries for his other specials. I even purchased the special so I could watch it and document things about it.

Maybe it's my fault, but I still feel like my time as an editor for Wikipedia has been stifled and ruined by editors like you who make choices on a whim without comparisons to similar topics. Maybe instead of reverting all the work I did, you could have sent me a message or commented on it first and given me the chance to rectify whatever situation you claim is an issue. Halfire101 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Halfire101, the reason why was that it didn't meet notability guidelines, largely because it wasn't supported by reliable sources. I'm an editor on the new page patrol, so my main task on Wikipedia is reviewing new articles and determining whether they comply with notability guidelines (among other issues). As far as sending a message first, editing etiquette is governed by the process of Bold, Revert, Discuss (i.e. WP:BRD), which is to say that bold edits (including converting articles to redirects) are encouraged and don't require prior notice, so long as everyone is civil in discussing changes if a bold edit turns out to be controversial. Your contributions have not been deleted: if you think you can demonstrate the subject's notability, you can absolutely revert my edit and add more sources. If you'd like some time to work on the article without other editors interfering, we can also move it to Draft-space where you can work on it unmolested. That having been said, I'd suggest making sure that you're familiar with WP:GNG before spending much more time on it.

I'm also happy to answer any other questions you may have. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

for putting the category template here... Given that I had the presence of mind to mention the category in the edit summary when creating it, I probably should have made it around to the conclusion that it should go in the page too... oh well, I'll try to remember next time :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 06:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pacific War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pacific War. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jolanta Omilian

I did not agree for deletion of page of Jolanta Omilian, of course I can correct it and use her www as source of information. There is no the button button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". Can you please help me? Atomksk (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Atomksk, it appears that you were too late to argue for the article to not be deleted. According to the public logs, the article was deleted for copyright infringement and unambiguous advertising (WP:G11, WP:G12), ie the article was almost entirely copied from a copyrighted course that was itself a promotional website and not a reliable source. These are special speedy deletion criteria that are usable only for articles that are obvious violations of Wikipedia's policies, and a discussion is not required for an admin to delete the article once it has been tagged, unlike the more formal processes of proposed deletion and articles for deletion which are used for less egregious cases.

If you want the case to be reviewed and potentially have the article restored, you can start a discussion here. However, unless you can find significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the article will likely be deleted again.

Please also be aware that Wikipedia has to take copyright violations very seriously. Unless a source specifically states that its content is free and in the public domain or released through a relevant Creative Commons license, you cannot copy text from it into a Wikipedia article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For reviewing so many pages.★Trekker (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Fulani extremism

Hello, I have done some work on Fulani extremism as requested. It is certainly a quite slanted article; wondering what you think of what I put on the talk page for it. AmplifyWiki (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Samina Akbari, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, why, it's at Afd? The flowchart says that we should mark articles as reviewed once they're up for AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, Rosguill - I had a momentary memory failure. I went back & marked it reviewed, then reread this discussion. I thought consensus was to include all, not just CSD and Prods. There were strong arguments to leave all AfD articles as unreviewed. I think DGG's Support iVote explains it best (last one in the discussion). Directly under that discussion is the Implementation discussion so I asked ICPH if the fix was done. I don't know how to check for that, do you? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, no worries it happens. At any rate, the implementation discussion it seems that ICPH said it was done? But also, I don't think there was anything to change in how the script interacts with AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

	Yee Yee Award
	yee yee EvasiveFire1987 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of India. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Ren (singer)

I noticed the tag for deletion a little too late and now the page is already deleted. What can i do in this regard??Asikm03 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Asikm03, at this point you can take it up at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. However, the issue with the article is that the version you wrote did not sufficiently address the issues raised as part of an earlier deletion discussion here. I would suggest that you read through the concerns raised in that discussion and make sure that you address them in any future drafts of the article that you write. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 11:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Principal Mutual Fund page

Hi Rosguill,

I have noticed that you've reviewed my Principal Mutual Fund and now its redirecting to Principal_Financial_Group.

Kindly let me know the possible reasons for the same. The Principal Mutual Fund page is a division of Principal_Financial_Group and represents Indian product offerings of the parent.

Let me know changes to improve the page.

Regards, Namrata

@K23.namrata: I actually wasn't the editor who made this change, but rather I reviewed the redirect created by another editor. That having been said, looking at the article that you've restored on that page, I agree with the decision made by the other editor to change the article of the redirect, as the article as written does not demonstrate the subject's notability. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide more citations to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. In your draft, sources #1 and #3 are not significant coverage, and #2 is not independent. For more information, please see WP:ORGCRITE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 11:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Circular links

Hi. At Bull baronets, the circular redirects were in place so that, when those redirects become articles, nothing further needs to be done (as suggested at WP:SELFRED – I'm not qualified to decide the likelihood of those becoming articles, but I saw no harm in leaning towards the possibility). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1, looking at WP:SELFRED, it seems to specifically recommend making such redirects only to sections or anchors in the article, which I don't believe was the case for the Bull baronet links. At any rate, I'm not particularly invested in the article so if you think it's appropriate to add them back, go ahead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:British Royal Family

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:British Royal Family. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Rosguill,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"The page has been reviewed"

I've recently noticed I get notifications when pages I create are reviewed. Reading Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, this makes sense. However, I've also noticed that not all the pages I create get reviewed. I'm not really clear how pages are chosen to be reviewed. Are there specific namespaces that NPP tends to patrol, and ones they don't? Is there a limited number of volunteers, and pages expire from being "new" after a month?

Anyway, I'll probably be turning off these notifications, since I don't see much benefit in receiving them; I only care if a page I create has been reviewed and deleted. e^πi (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

E to the Pi times i, currently, pages in the new page queue are split between redirects and articles. Due to some sloppy code, the backlog cutoff for articles is 3 months, but the cutoff for articles redirects is 1 month. Pages that miss the cutoff date are silently taken off the queue as if they had been reviewed. We only realized that there were separate cutoff dates a few weeks ago, so most redirects were not being patrolled until then.

For the last few weeks, I've taken it upon myself to review all redirects that are about to slip off the back of the queue, and we still have a fair amount of breathing room on the article queue so right now all new pages should get reviewed within three months, although we are understaffed and could use more people helping out. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

By the backlog cutoff for articles is 3 months, but the cutoff for articles is 1 month, do you mean the cutoff for article redirects is 1 month?

How about templates and userspace pages then? Most of the pages I have created thus far are one of the two, though I hope to create some new articles in the future. I might be interested in helping with NPP after I get more experience with article creation. e^πi (talk | contribs) 20:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

E to the Pi times i, oops, you're absolutely correct. Re templates and userspace, I don't think we have any review system in place for stuff outside of mainspace. You can find out more about the patrol at WP:NPP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Call-out culture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Call-out culture. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thanks so much for all your tireless work with the New Page Patrol! Your efforts are appreciated by all. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance on AfC submission by Lesenwriter

{anchor|09:42:12, 8 May 2019 review of submission by Lesenwriter}}

• Lesenwriter (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Thamizhachi Thangapandian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have improved the article as per previous reviewer comments. But unfortuantely reviewer Stevey7788 is not responsive any longer or his user id is blocked. May i kindly request you to review and approve my article please — User:Lesenwriter (talk) 9:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Lesenwriter, I actually haven't done AfC reviews and am not sure what the exact process is. I would suggest starting a thread in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and ask someone to help you there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PamD. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, To Have and to Hold (1996 film), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

PamD 17:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

St Hild's College, Durham

Hi, thanks for reviewing the new redirect I created. I see you have added the R from alternative name tag, should this be the R from predecessor company name tag as St Hild's merged with St Bedes's to form the College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham.TSventon (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

TSventon, ah my mistake, feel free to make that change as you see fit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem, both tags are completely new to me and it is good that you are ensuring that new redirects get reviewed.TSventon (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frankfurt School

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wapato Jail Redirect

Hi Rosguill, I was just notified that "The page Wapato Jail has been reviewed." with your username attached, since Wapato Jail is just a redirect what does this mean? —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Editor's Apprentice, it means that I looked at the redirect and assessed that it was in fact an appropriate redirect. Otherwise, I would have sent it to WP:RfD, tagged it with a CSD template, or potentially taken some other action to make sure the redirect is pointing at a useful target. In principle, we should have always been reviewing redirects (or at least since we started reviewing new pages in general), but due to a software bug, redirects were silently slipping off the new page queue sooner than regular articles, and thus most of them were not being reviewed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting and good to know, thanks.—T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 23:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Editor's Apprentice also, hopefully we're going to be able to turn over a fair amount of this to bots soon (most recent thread), but we're rolling it out slowly so for now the bot just catches redirects from "foo (disambiguation)" –> foo and between titles where the only difference is the presence of diacritics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks for this explanation, I also came here because of a similar notice and was curious about this process. At first glance I thought it was notice of a problem, I didn't expect "notice: there was no problem" Mathiastck (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian Assange

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Quintuple Stella

I noticed that you redirected Quintuple Stella to Stella (United States coin). The Stella was a cancelled $4 coin, while a "quintuple Stella" is a $20 coin, otherwise known as a Double eagle. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Guidance Barnstar
	Thank you for assembling the new page patrol source guide (WP:NPPSG), a comprehensive list of news sources organized by reliability, region, and topic. Your efforts help ensure that new articles on Wikipedia are of high quality. — Newslinger talk 21:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

MDMA

Next time, wait a while will you?

Just just changed the banner to a completely inappropriate one ... Chaosdruid (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, I'm a bit confused, how is a third-party tag inappropriate? Although if you're expanding the article to address the issue it's a moot point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and a little miffed that I got 2 ecs because of your banner change after I put the right one there (while adding refs!) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, apologies for any inconvenience. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No need for apologies lol, we're all here to help! Thinking about it perhaps I should have dropped you a line, but I did not notice you were TWing until a few minutes ago :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nathaniel Mary Quinn

Hello and thank you for your edits. I wonder if you could close the redirect discussion for Nathaniel Mary Quinn?He is in multiple museum collections, meeting WP:ARTIST point 4 d), and also has very wide coverage. I'm not sure why but the redirect came up on my watchlist. I have prepared a draft to replace the redirect with. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

thank you kindly for the procedural close.04:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Aashik Awara

Dear @Rosguill: Aashik Awara is 1993 it is already created by other editor but i have created Other Languages (Bhojpuri) film not related to each other any Ange so please undo this artical CHKMTS (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

CHKMTS, I actually never said the movies were related. However, you have not demonstrated that the Bhojpuri film is notable, and its title is a likely search term for the other movie. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

We have a disagreement which is a good excuse to have tea. cheers. DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William Barr

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William Barr. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol Stuff

Hey, I shall mark your "new" articles, Freedom of religion in Somalia and Freedom of religion in Morocco, as reviewed for the New Pages Patrol. I see that you spun them off from the older Freedom of religion by country and tagged them yourself as being dependent on minimal sources. That's fine with me from the NPP standpoint, as the community can expand those articles in due time, but are you aware that someone else has questioned the neutrality of the Somalia article? Later, ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Doomsdayer520, I actually hadn't seen that, thanks for bringing it to my attention. That having been said, given that it's based on one source and a US government source at that, I'd almost be surprised if it didn't have a pov issue. Unfortunately, they didn't explain specifically what looked off to them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Guidance

I really feel like I need guidance in dealing with Pr12402, the editor who brought you to the deletion nomination thread for Open Space; their consistently disruptive editing is ruining the articles they've effectively hijacked, most notably Hair Peace Salon and Gentleman, and I feel like I have nowhere to turn to address this, the admins included. I was hoping you might be willing to help guide me, or to hear me out as a fellow editor. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, I don't blame you one bit, Pr clearly has no idea how notability guidelines work. Luckily, I speak Russian, so it's a bit easier for me to go through the sources.

• [1] starts off looking like a database entry, but if you scroll down, it's actually several decent-length reviews by separate writers for the site (dubbed "experts", hence the site name). I've honestly never heard of the source before, but they have an editorial board so I'd say they're good for music until I see someone say otherwise.

• [2] is a bit long on quotes, but it's also got some legitimate secondary coverage.

• Meanwhile, in Muzykalnaya Gazeta, we've got an interview that comes with a four paragraph secondary introduction [3] and a concert review [4].

• They also won a government award of unclear importance. [5]

All in all, I think we're at a level that it's appropriate to keep the article. That having been said, Pr also attempted to bully me after I nominated one of their articles for deletion by threatening to nominate an article I wrote for deletion. I think that at this point we may want to consider taking this to ANI because intentionally or unintentionally they are WP:NOTHERE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't personally think this is enough to qualify for a weak keep, but I also won't try to argue the point, since it's difficult for me to verify the significance of those articles due to a language barrier. I'll leave the nomination up and see if anyone else chimes in, and if an administrator thinks the article is worth keeping, I won't belabor the point.

As far as the threat goes, that's really low; I would be interested to see where this happened. I actually tried to discuss Pr on ANI, but I was told to "leave them a custom note and help them out" and that I should assume good faith. Cabayi correctly pointed out that this needed "more than a nice word". Nonetheless, my concerns were effectively completely brushed off by the admin, and I'm at least thankful that Scope creep, without prompt, took time out of their day to leave Pr a message themselves and helped work on Hair Peace Salon. Bear in mind that Pr has been doing this since 2017, they've hijacked several articles and effectively run them into the ground, they've been told twice that this isn't acceptable, and they still suggest adding more references to Open Space to try to artificially inflate its notability; the issue is rampant, chronic, and seemingly intractable. I completely agree about WP:NOTHERE for a number of reasons listed in that section. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, you can read it at Talk:Obongjayar, although they went by a different signature back then, which happened right after I nominated Harkin Deximire for PROD. Also this diff. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill Kind of unrelated, but I really like the article. It's well-written, it's an appropriate length, and all of the information is sourced. I don't know if it helps or not, but I found this article from Vice about Obongjayar. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27, thanks! Btw I messaged Oshwah with more of the information brought up here and they agree that we should reopen the ANI case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This issue is not new, as I got mixed up in that editor's tactics with the Hair Peace Salon article. See Talk:Hair Peace Salon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon. I brought up the preposterous ref-bombing at Wikipedia:Cleanup (posts in December 2018 and April 2019). User:Bbarmadillo at that project attempted to get some advice from experts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup which was noticed by TheTechnician27. In any case, if there is going to be any sort of investigation for disruptive editing, I can help out and you might want to contact Bbarmadillo too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Doomsdayer520, the case has been reopened here _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill Both subjects are somewhat notable, but need a massive cleanup. I am not very active on the project now, but if the community decides to take action and cleanup some of their contributions, I am ready to help. Also left a comment at the reopened case about possible COI of the user discussed. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Railgun (season 1)

I didn't copyright any info. That was already on the main episode page before I separated it into a new page. Get your facts straight first before wrongfully accusing somebody. VarisKnight (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

VarisKnight, apologies for any offense. In the future, if you're copying information from one Wikipedia page to another, please provide attribution in your edit summary so that others know where the info is coming from. Additionally, it appears that even if you didn't intentionally add copyright-violating material, the material itself was a copyright violation. If you see episode summaries like the ones in the Railgun article, you should probably do a background check, as they are an extremely common (and with a little practice, easy to notice) type of copyright violation (you can use this tool). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Noting this edit. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 05:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, thanks, that looks super concerning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Hello User:Rosguill, thanks for your efforts at Talk:Moderate evangelical theology. The same user who created that article also created the Believers' Church and Evangelical charismatic movement articles. I have started a merge proposal for these articles at Talk:Church invisible#Merger proposal and Talk:Charismatic Christianity#Merger proposal. If this interests you, please have a look. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Anupam, thanks, I've gone ahead and supported the proposal at Charismatic Christianity. I think I'm going to refrain from voting on the Church invisible one, as I honestly don't know much about the subject and feel like a poor judge (not that I know a ton about evangelical Christianity, but I know a purely redundant article when I see one). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 16 June 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) 04:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

problem with quote formatting would you please have a look at my talk page?

would you please have a look there? --Gyanda (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sufi Trail

Hey, I wanted to review Sufi Trail but saw that you already added 2 maintenance tags. You are also a NPP, so I figured it would be good to confirm that you haven't reviewed it already (it isn't marked as such yet). Thanks, MrClog (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, I would hop over to the talk page for the article––it was approved at AfC, but some of the provided sources turned out to be about a different Sufi trail, so the editor who did that is doing some more research before taking more action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Redirect Barnstar

The Redirect Barnstar is awarded to editors who have contributed substantially in the area of redirects. I can think of no better person for this barnstar than you. It seems every week I either see you (1) at WP:RFD helping ensure our redirects are the most quality they can be or (2) reviewing a massive number of redirects (3 of mine just today alone!). Your work is so truly appreciated!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MJL! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (House red) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating House red.

User:Onel5969 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

How are you not autopatrolled?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, hahaha. I haven't requested it yet. I probably should go do that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If you don't, I will. . Keep up the excellent work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for creating that drama. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, lol no worries _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Royal College of Art Students' Union

Hello there, it appears that you have mistakenly deleted or forgot to file the deletion discussion entry for the RfD initiated by you. See this diff. Regards Hitro talk 03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

HitroMilanese, my apologies for any confusion. I merged it to an ongoing discussion from a previous day. You can find it here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect

The Triplemania (2019) redirect did not need to be reviewed. Seems pointless and redundant to do so. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, all new redirects go to the new article queue where someone looks over them. "Reviewing" them removes them from the queue. There was nothing wrong with the Triplemania (2019) redirect but I do come across a non-trivial amount of vandalism, redirects pointing to the wrong targets, and redirects which should be disambiguations so I'd say it's still important as a whole. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A redirect is not an article. Seems pointless to have it show up in the new article queue. That's just me. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Obristan Above All

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zYtUdV90C4 "obristan above all" appears in one of the endings to the game and on the topic of obristan it's a fictional country inside the game https://papersplease.fandom.com/wiki/Obristan just "obristan" redirects to papers please — Preceding unsigned comment added by An1alias (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

An1alias, I would suggest bringing your comments to the discussion here so that other editors can hear you out. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Hae Min Lee

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Hae Min Lee. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You were wrong

I went back on old edits for A Certain Scientific Railgun and you was wrong. Those summaries wasn't copyrighted because they were original summaries written all the way from 2009. Mircosoft added the series that site in 2016 and copied the summary from here. This isn't the first time I seen that happen as other another site I use does the same thing when they upload movies and episodes cartoons and anime. Here's proof [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. VarisKnight (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

VarisKnight, all apologies. Feel free to add back that content, although I would suggest noting the mirror in the edit summary or on the talk page so that someone else does not make the same mistake. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Rosguill, I've seen that you recently reviewed several articles that I've written, and I thought it was only appropriate for me to thank you for your efforts. Keep up the good work on wikipedia! Alexkyoung (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by Nickm57

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse. Alexkyoung (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexkyoung, I think that you may be mischaracterizing other people's edits. Nothing in their behavior on that talk page suggests to me in the slightest that they are holocaust deniers. While there likely should be some coverage of the intersection between racism and antisemitism in the article, adding a polemical paragraph to the lead with an incredibly weak source without changing any of the rest of the article is emphatically not the way to go about improving that page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Rosguill,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles Desmarais

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles Desmarais. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

NBC News Radio

Good morning, Rosguill. I thought the information should be there, but as you need to expand. I come from the Wikipedia in Spanish, so I do not know much about the rules of Wikipedia in English. I do not know if you could help me, in my editions in this Wikipedia. I ask you to be my tutor. Thanks for the reversal.

Attentively....

--Villalaso (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Villalaso, thanks for following up on this. My understanding is that notability guidelines are a bit stricter on enWiki than on esWiki––while on esWiki you can make arguments just based on a subject's real-world importance, on enWiki it is critical to actually be able to provide multiple examples of independent coverage in reliable sources before starting an article.

In the case of NBC News Radio, there weren't enough citations attached to the article to meet the general notability guideline. Moreover, the content in the article was already included at NBC News. Generally, when a subject is already covered in a section of another article, it's best to expand that section before splitting into another article. Only when the section becomes so long that it's making the article it's currently in awkward (i.e. 3+ paragraphs, 3+ reliable independent sources) does it start to make sense to split it off into its own article.

I unfortunately don't really have the bandwidth to do much tutoring right now, but if you have any other questions I can do my best to answer them. If you're looking for an experienced editor to mentor you more thoroughly, check out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. pero si hay cualquier cosa que crees que no entendiste bien en inglês, también puedo ayudar en español. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Creating many redirect pages

Hi! Thanks for your service to the community, particularly in regards to patrolling new pages. Your work taught me to include appropriate rcat templates to new redirects, which improves usability.

I've created something like 200 redirects so far (of which none have been deleted) and am wondering, should I apply for the autopatrolled right to help decrease your backlog? --pmj (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Pmj, thanks for the kind words. If you think you can qualify for autopatrol privileges, go for it, although I think admins are paying more attention to article-creation history than redirects. I tried looking up your track record on xtools to get a better idea of whether you're likely to get the privileges or not, but it looks like the website is down so unfortunately I can't offer much more advice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Browsing the history of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, it does seem that the admins have exceedingly stringent requirements — I mean, they didn't accept you! — and hold the opinion that redirects and stubs take little time to patrol. I'm not sure how that squares with a backlog that is a month deep, but it certainly answers my question about whether to apply. --pmj (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Doubts regarding a draft

Hi, Rosguill, Since one of my pages (on a Kpop artist) was deleted by you I decided to proceed with caution. I would really appreciate your help and guidance. I created a draft page which I had submitted. And was declined and asked to add citation. I am pretty sure its done. And I want to submit the article. But I am worried if it would be declined again or if any changes is required I'll be allowed to make it or deleted directly. I would like you to let me know the process.

Thanks Asikm03 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Asikm03, I assume you're asking about Draft:McClelland Engineers Pvt Ltd? Looking through the sources of that article, I agree with the editor that declined the submission that notability hasn't been established. In order to establish notability, you need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Looking through the sources attached to the article:

1. is a splash page for a magazine issue that I was not able to review directly. You could provide quotes from the cited article to help with this.
2. is a database entry, which is considered trivial coverage and does not contribute toward notability (see WP:CORPDEPTH for more information)
3. is also a database entry
4. does not have enough information in the citation for me to find the relevant source. You could amend this by providing a link, more complete citation information, or a quote.
5. could very well be significant coverage in a reliable source! But you linked to an entire edition of a newspaper in a language most editors don't speak, making it almost impossible for them to verify the coverage's quality. When citing long texts, and especially long texts in languages other than English, you need to provide sufficient page-and-section information in the citation for people to find the text that you're citing. Alternatively, you can quote the relevant section in the citation.
6. is the company's website, which is not independent
7. is a database entry

Keep in mind that in order to meet notability guidelines for companies and organizations, you need multiple examples of significant, reliable, independent, secondary coverage. So even if the three sources that I wasn't able to review were top tier, this article would still be just barely passing notability guidelines. I would suggest filling out the existing citations so that other editors can actually review them, and also finding more coverage in additional secondary sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense and I kind-of understand what needs to be done. Thank you for taking your time and explaining about things. I'm sure these points will help me not just with this article but other original articles I will write in the future. Asikm03 (talk)