Talk:Sasha Roseneil

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because I do not think it is "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view" - however, if someone highlights any particular problematic language or phrasing in the talk page I would absolutely edit and correct it. I do not see why this has led to immediate speedy deletion rather than a courteous discussion. The second point related to copyright - I have simply listed the books she has written - of course this will look similar to her list of books on her website. I have verified each book through its ISBN numbers but how can I change the titles? Please suggest to me how I can resolve this - should I list the year first, then the title, maybe take off the publisher in order to not be flagged for copyright? I find it quite unforgiving that a page that is less than 24hrs old can be flagged like this, without allowing others to contribute and improve. --Opto kitty (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because there is enough nuetral material from RS, and more RS i find by google news search, to leave an article that would meet GNG. --Rab V (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

We need a picture
This is a google search of all the pictures of her with generous licences Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sasha Roseneil.jpg

edit request for Sasha Roseneil article
An edit request posted on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines was deleted (without taking further action), evidently because posting the request there violated Wikipedia protocol per Talk page guidelines. The content of that request and the subsequent brief discussion can be viewed here.

Quite frankly, I could be misconstruing the issue. I have read that we are supposed to avoid biting the newcomers. I suppose some would say that the response to the original request was level-headed; perhaps this is a matter of POV. By the time I got around to adding my suggestion for a better source, almost two months had elapsed, so the original requestor had evidently thought he had done everything expected for this request to get done. I expected my suggested source would be helpful, but it seems to have been viewed as objectionable, because I should know better? Okay, well with an undue amount of effort, I have moved the request to the proper place (this page). I didn't think my input should have obligated me to actually fix anything, the suggestion itself ought to be seen as a contribution, not obligating further effort unless there is a question as to whether or not it's really an appropriate suggestion. Nevertheless, if you feel offended by this post, then please accept my apologies. Fabrickator (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)