User talk:Rosguill/Archive 17

Moses Olufemi
Hi Rosguill, The above article is not a paid article or a promotional article. I did not receive any compensations for my edits. This is not the only edits I have made. I wonder why they keep telling me the sources aren't reliable. These same sources are used in other accepted wikipedia pages. They are magazines websites, news websites, official websites. They are not just blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdeditorr (talk • contribs) 17:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm more concerned by the blatantly non-neutral writing in the article, as well as your insistence on sidestepping our article review procedures rather than heeding other editors' comments. Regarding the sources, after glancing through them quickly I think that irrespective of the source's reliability, they for the most part don't contain significant coverage of the subject, name dropping him but providing little additional information. signed,Rosguill talk 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If that is the problem, I am sorry about that. I have tried my best and I have given a reason why the page should not be deleted and if you think the page should be deleted, I suggest to return it back to draft. I didn't start the page, I only modified it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdeditorr (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok, I've moved it back to draftspace. I'm willing to take you at your word that you're not engaging in paid editing, but please be more careful to comply with both our content policies and our review procedures going forward. If you can't find additional coverage of Olufemi, it's possible that it's just WP:TOOSOON for an article. signed,Rosguill talk 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , Alright, thanks for your hard work and diligence. We will keep improving Wikipedia. But can you please tell me more about WP:TOOSOON I'd like to hear from you.
 * , you could read through the link I provided yourself, but the essence is that in cases where subjects have done work which could potentially generate significant coverage, but no such coverage exists yet, it's possibly TOOSOON: we shouldn't create the article until more coverage is available. Also, please remember to sign your messages with four tildes like so ~ . signed,Rosguill talk 18:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But what can you say about an article that was moved to namespace and immediately indexed to search engines. The article Draft:Moses Olufemi was indexed to search engines immediately it was move to namespace and that gave me a surprised. And I later noticed it was moved back to draft. The subject has a knowledge panel on google and yahoo search but it has no about for the subject and that was why I decided to create a Wikipedia page for him. Well, right now, the Wikipedia page is still on search engines but it is an error page since the page got deleted. To clear my doubts, why was it indexed on search engines at first?

Thank you. Abcdeditorr (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , pages get indexed by search engines inconsistently. They're not supposed to get indexed until they've been approved by a new page reviewer, but it doesn't always work that way and it's not something we can enforce. signed,Rosguill talk 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Question
Hi, Rosguill. I've got a quick question re an article i'm reviewing.

Tracy Beaker Returns (series 3), the content of which was split from List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes, and slightly but rather insignificantly expanded.

The article appears to be a topic split, rather than a technical one for length (list had 10,231 characters prior to content removal).

Given that, i'm thinking i should be assessing the notability of the new article as a standalone subject? Rather than working on the assumption that it inherits notability from Tracy Beaker Returns.

Cursory search on the topic doesn't look great, and i'm thinking of merging the content back to the list. I'm however waiting on an answer from the article creator regarding the split reasoning.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thank you Zindor (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think your hunches are correct, but the bigger concern for that article is that it looks like the episode summaries are all copyright violations. The content at List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes appears to be as well. It's not totally impossible that it's copied from Wikipedia given how old the article is, but the content looks like professional episode summaries to me. signed,Rosguill talk 02:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that, i should have noticed it. I spoke on my talk page earlier with the creator of the article, they were just good-faith topic-splitting. I'll have a chat with them later today about this. I'm thinking the solution is to do a paraphrasing marathon on all the content, merge the Series 1&3 article content back into 'List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes', then redirect the blank articles to that target. Thanks Zindor (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So i reworded the content in the Series 3 article, which is now in draft space, to the point where it was no longer copvio. I've now realised that the origin of the content, the tvdb website, is user-generated and i've been paraphrasing utter trash all evening. New plan is get consensus for a redirect of Tracy Beaker Returns (series 1) at Afd, remove all copyvio from List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes leaving behind a skeleton of Series 2, and add a reliably sourced skeleton table of the Series 3 episodes. Thoughts? Is there an easier way out this nukable mess that i keep digging myself further into? Zindor (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you sure it's user-generated? If so, then it may actually have been a Wikipedia mirror. To my eye they looked like summaries that were lifted from the official descriptions published by a show.


 * At any rate, you're not obligated to fix copyvio by rephrasing it. While it'll be appreciated if you do, I generally only try to save content if it's not, as you put it, utter trash, and about a genuinely notable subject. If copyvio looks like it would be too much effort to fix, you're allowed to simply remove it. signed,Rosguill talk 00:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Tvdb claim to be a user-generated content website. The summaries do however appear to be written by the same person, the style of writing is aimed at the target audience of young-teenagers and children, and the grammar is decent; so arguably yes they could be professionally written. But without being verifiable, they're about as much use to me as an ashtray on a motorbike.


 * I've just found summaries on BBC Iplayer, which are perfect for this. No doubt they're highly prone to linkrot so i'll archive them. I'll delete the copyvio, take a step back and put this on the backburner. We prevented a copyvio new article from existing in mainspace, so i guess goal achieved from an NPP perspective, but i've faffed about way too much. Always something to learn. Thanks for your advice on this. Zindor (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Eddie891
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg SQL

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
 * A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
 * A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
 * An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Public Art in Public Places for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Public Art in Public Places is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Public Art in Public Places until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Barte (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Donald trump
Hi there! I saw that I was pinged in that redirect deletion discussion, and you were the one who closed it. The only reason I created that redirect was to protect it from being created by someone else as an attack page, which is why you'll see in the log that I immediately semi-protected it from both editing and moving. It sounds like the creation wasn't necessary (according to the discussion) and it was deleted; that's totally fine. The reason it existed in the first place was to prevent vandalism. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

problematic auto-patrolled creation
Hi. I hope you are doing well. Just a few minutes ago, I came across a little bit of problematic article, 55th Munich Security Conference, which was created by an auto-patrolled editor (noping). I didn't look through their talkpage, or other edits; I went through only new creations. They are a long term editor, and acting in good faith. There are no issues with notability, or UPE. But there page creations definitely need a second look. They still go through AfC, but I think they also create new articles directly. The first article that I had come across was sort of well sourced, but it didn't have "reference" section, nor {reflist}, nor any categories. It didn't have talkpage either. I didn't want to discourage them, so I haven't communicated with them yet. Also, they hadn't asked for the flag, an admin gave it to them based on the bot generated list. What do you think, what should be done? Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know that any admin action is necessary at this time, given both the relatively minor nature of most of the issues you've identified, as well as the fact that these are quite recent article creations (for all we know, they maybe would have gotten around to it later this week, they literally haven't made any edits since spinning off the Munich Security Conference articles yesterday). I think it would be more appropriate to reach out to them and remind them that since they're autopatrolled, they should take care to assign categories (or improve categories) and do other minor cleanup. signed,Rosguill talk 13:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thats what I meant. I didn't mean to say any "action", its just, I am not sure how to approach them. I am still feeling somewhat bad about this communication which took place couples of hours ago. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , was that the diff you meant to add? I don't see anything to feel bad about there (and the recipient doesn't even seem to have responded yet). At any rate, I think a similar message to that would be fine in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs)
 * That was the correct diff. I don't know why, but I felt sort of bad/guilty after posting that message. I am getting sort of overcautious these days I think. A few days ago, I had to ask Diannaa (special:permalink/975713620). But you are right, we should let them know in plain, and polite wordings to create the articles in userspace or draftspace, and then move them in mainspace once everything has been done. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Starting from tomorrow!
Dear Rosguill, I will be starting back with the NPP school starting tomorrow. I had been quite busy and recently started again (like 2-3 days ago) only correcting grammar using a grammar tool(which quickly helps me navigate through the mistakes). I would like to become NPP, do occasional recent changes patrolling, and also be able to correct grammar when necessary. Also, I want my talk page to have archived sections because now it looks unclean, I tried copy-pasting code from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_III but it didn't help, tried copy-pasting code from your talk page for archive bot but it failed too. Could you please assist me or send me a link to get my talk page archived with respect to months and years? Lastly, I want my name to be colorful with a different font when I sign, how do I do this? I am sorry if I am asking too much, just archiving and signing text would help. Thank you so much for taking the time to read. Angus1986 (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Rosguill, I'd like you to be aware that this editor is apparently good faith, enthusiastic and highly prolific but evidently bluntly applying mass changes to articles without scrutinising or understanding the changes suggested by the tool. They have neither desisted nor reverted their work, as requested by myself and another editor. I've made a slight dent in reverting these manually but is there a means to do a mass rollback of their edits to date? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , my impression from reading through the additional discussion that has occurred since you left me this message is that the situation is more under control now? I'm not aware of any mass-rollback options (but this isn't a field of editing that I would have much experience with). My hunch, however, would be that if any such tools exist, they would only be usable either with the consent of the affected editor, or as part of a decision at ANI. signed,Rosguill talk 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, since my earlier post, Angus has been convinced to carry out some reversions of his own edits. I haven't had a chance to check if everything has been addressed but we are certainly in a better place than we were. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't have time to respond to all these questions right now; you may find that you'll be able to get quicker answers at the teahouse. Touching briefly on what Mutt Lunker brought up, it looks to me like you may just be rushing through things bit too quickly. Try slowing down and proofreading your edits more carefully before you publish them, both in articles and on talk pages. I'm happy to continue instructing you in NPPSCHOOL, but you need to be aware that new page reviewers are expected to be patient and thorough; failure to uphold that standard generally ends with permissions getting revoked. signed,Rosguill talk 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will be patient and thorough this time. Had a good lesson, will take it as a learning curve. :) Angus1986 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have restarted with NPPschool, will wait for more assignments from you(whenever you get free time). Thank you! Angus1986 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, hope you are doing well. :) Angus1986  TALK  12:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Rock 'N' Roll Rumble Tour
Hi. Can you have a look at Rock 'N' Roll Rumble Tour, there is a user is intent on an edit war after changes initially by you and later by and myself. Thanks --John B123 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Heroes (band)
Hi, I saw your close here, and was disappointed that the conversation relied so heavily on current status rather than logic or user service. You noted that the question can be revisited if the current status changes. If I add content about Darren Costin's Heroes to the Wang Chung page, may I add it to the dab and retarget, or would you request a second discussion? Chubbles (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no need for a new discussion, just treat it as a bold edit if someone objects (I doubt they will). signed,Rosguill talk 04:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks Chubbles (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Petrol
Hy, Since you rejected my request for New Page reviewer (for good reasons obviously), I want you to petrol these articles. Jeera Blade, Noori Natt. Real Mishi Dar (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't do page reviews on request, wait for their turn in the queue. Also, new page reviewers are not allowed to review their own articles, so you not having been granted your request has no bearing on this. signed,Rosguill talk 00:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Real Mishi Dar (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Kewaskum Statesman News Journal
Hi Rosguill,

I wanted to draw your attention to the "Kewaskum Statesman News Journal", published on KWS24(.)com. I was going about improving some advertorial articles today - Leitwind, and after that Trocellen. In both cases I went about editing, removing peacock words and blatantly advertorial content. After completing that (in the case of Trocellen, i'm still in the middle) I went to google news to look for coverage and decide whether to PROD or not (due to lacking notability), and though both WIKI articles have been written a while back, and even though they have nothing to do with one another, they both appear in Google News mentioned articles in that same KWS.

In both cases, they were published on September 8th 2020. I did not conduct additional tests to verify whether or not every slightly notable company mentioned on Wikipedia has also been mentioned there, but I would assume they are. Either way - I suggest blacklisting them from serving as a source. Best, Pratat (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for looking into this, but the place to raise concerns about sources is at WP:RSN. I'd also note that unless the Kewaskum Statesman is being actively cited on Wikipedia articles, there isn't really much of a need to blacklist the source, a response that's reserved for repeated spam. Given that the website provides zero information about the publication itself, it's pretty clearly unreliable even before we consider the odd shadowing of Wikipedia articles that you noticed, and thus unlikely to be used as it is. signed,Rosguill talk 15:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who spinoff companions
Hi Rosguill, thanks for checking out those Dr Who spinoff companion pages that were redirected. Some of them don't have adequate sources right now, but I think that sources exist. If you want to challenge their notability, do you think they should go to AfD? I'm not sure what the best step is here. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , honestly I'm inclined to agree that sources probably exist for many of them. Searching on Google, I see that most of them draw quite a few mentions from Dr Who-oriented media, some of which may be reliable. I think it's ok to leave them be with the notability tags on. signed,Rosguill talk 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I've got some books about Doctor Who spinoff media, I'll get some references on the pages a little later. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , as for the others, I think that converting them to redirects is the easiest solution. Given that they're totally unsourced, any argument for keeping would be dependent on finding additional sources (rather than arguing that existing sources are sufficient), so I think it would save everyone a headache to just have them be redirects until someone can find the time to look for sources. If you (or someone else) puts in the effort to find sources and it's still borderline for notability, then AfD may be appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 20:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll add references to the ones that I can; I'll ping you if that involves undoing redirects. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Help
Hello as you declined my request comments, along with some motivation that I should work on these fields such as page moving, CSD,PROD, or deletion. But I'm quite confused, will you help me elaborate from where should I start. Thanks, please assist me. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd start by carefully reading our WP:Deletion policy. If you think you understand it, go to WP:AfD, read the additional instructions there, and then try participating in some of the discussions listed at the daily log links. signed,Rosguill talk 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Contribution Help
Hello as Nomination of Hindrise (NGO) for deletion by Looplips (talk). Speedy deletion nomination of Hindrise (NGO) by JavaHurricane (talk), I don't now why he did it, they don't want to make someone page contributor. this page is not about any promotions and not violated or copyrights. some motivation that I should work on these fields such as page moving or creation, deletion. But I'm quite confused, will you help me elaborate from where should I start. How can i improve myself? Thanks, please assist me. Monukhan13 15:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what Looplips was thinking because they didn't write a nomination statement, but I think JavaHurricane is right that the article reads as very promotional. Article writing is hard, especially if English is not your first language. I would suggest focusing on tasks that don't require as much prose writing, such as adding WP:Categories or hunting for citations for undersourced articles. I'd suggest that you take a look at the WP:Task Center and try working on some of the tasks that are listed as "suitable for all editors" to see what you like. signed,Rosguill talk 15:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ante Pavlic Talk
For the consensus, it seems 8 are in fine with Yugoslavian Croat, 1 Prefers just Yugoslavian without the Croat ethnic mention (though we can ask them their input in this) and 8 are in objection and want Croatian or Croat to be the chosen element. So it would seem Yugoslavian Croat has enough support and argumentation to stay then? Especially since the newest participant voted 2 months later when the RfC should have been closed? Had it not been for them the consensus would support the move. This doesn’t seem right. Why not keep it open another two months then? Especially as we see voters from other Language Wikipedias possibly canvasing that occurred with no biters seeming to repeat each other. There wasn’t really any vandalism for “Yugoslavian Croat” so the reasoning for that “no” vote makes little sense. Also, the RfC was to change the article from “Yugoslavian Croat” to “Croatian” so if there is “no consensus” in the RfC why was “Croatian” chosen? It was stable for many months as “Yugoslavian Croat” as per edit history shows. I’d ask you to please take a closer look. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to stand by my assessment. The voting was close enough that the end result was no consensus in the absence of arguments that decidedly refute one side or the other, even if we ignore the late vote. Some of the votes were a bit repetitive, but given that their arguments weren't decisively refuted that's not a reason to discount them. If you want to throw out votes due to canvassing, you're going to need to present a stronger case that canvassing occurred. Editors' unwillingness to tendentiously impose their own interpretations of the discussion while waiting for a close can't be taken as evidence in favor of the non-status-quo result (and there actually was some edit warring between you and another editor over this). As for what the prior status quo was, I was going off of this, a version that appears to have stood for years before this dispute began. The Yugoslav version was reinstated by an editor in April despite the lack of consensus on the talk page.


 * It may be worth mentioning that after completing the close, I got curious and decided to do a search of RS to see how they referred to Pavelic, and came back with a handful of examples for Croat and Croatian, and none for Yugoslavian. This had no bearing on my close as it wasn't an argument presented in the discussion, but if the discussion were to be reopened I think that there is a clear-cut, policy-backed case against calling him Yugoslavian in the lead and infobox. signed,Rosguill talk 20:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate taking a second look and I will need to look at the sources as you mentioned. But the votes seem 8 for Croatian and 9 against Croatian and for Yugoslavian. Shouldn’t that be decisive if you aren’t taking RS findings into consideration? OyMosby (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, we operate on a consensus basis which does not mean a simple majority vote wins. That small of a vote difference isn't enough in the absence of decisive arguments.


 * As for the sources, I just went to Google scholar and searched for "[Yugoslav/Yugoslavian/Croat/Croatian] Ante Pavelić" and "Ante Pavelić was a [Yugoslav/Yugoslavian/Croat/Croatian]. The Croat and Croatian searches returned:


 * Ante Pavelić was a Croat from Bosnia-Herzegovina
 * showed up as a result for "Ante Pavelić was a Croatian", wasn't able to access the text
 * Croat nationalist Ante Pavelić, and later Ante Pavelićwas a Croatian nationalist
 * the exiled Croatian Ante Pavelić
 * ...among them the Croatian Ante Pavelić
 * Men like the Croatian Ante Pavelić
 * A somewhat similar adventure lived the Croatian Ante Pavelic
 * Among the better-known were the Croatian Ante Pavelic
 * the most infamous Hercegovin Croat, Ante Pavelic
 * such as the Croat Ante Pavelic
 * the Croat Ante Pavelic
 * were Croat Ante Pavelić
 * led by Croat Ante Pavelić


 * I'm honestly quite surprised that the anti-Yugoslav camp didn't produce these examples themselves. signed,Rosguill talk 20:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Source looks good to me and I trust your judgement. Hadn’t seen these. They say nationality as Croatian. Even though Croatia didn’t exist as a legitimate acknowledged country at the time but a puppet state. This was what made me vote yes really. But RS is RS. Thanks for taking the time to look through these and conversing with me with patience. Wish more editors were like you! Willing to explain. The editor that started the RfC and was heavily invested in this and met me with personal attacks (deciding to end voting when they like, attitude, accusations and other insults) in their edit diffs as you can see on the Ante Pavelić edits history. They likely are pleased to get away with the insults towards me get their way. Never really liked me haha. So is life I suppose. Seems the sources are very clear in regarding him as Croatian. So I agree you made the right call after all. Thanks Rosguill for restoring my faith in Wikipedia :). Take care! OyMosby (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Just want to say thanks and the diff comment had me laughing. I probably should have let it go but had a bad day today. Straw met camel’s back. OyMosby (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , haha, I was a little worried that the edit summary may have pushed a bit too far. Glad you appreciated it. As for the concern you noted about whether admins are paying attention to Balkan-related disruption, there's really nothing new under the sun. As I'm sure you know, it's one of the more contentious subjects on Wikipedia, so I hope you'll forgive me and other admins if we focus on addressing it primarily when specific disruptive behavior is brought to our attention, rather than proactively scouring the edit histories of every editor that may have pushed a POV on the subject. signed,Rosguill talk 17:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries I am aware that admins are doing all they can and are pressed for time and resources. So I know that some cases just slip through. My concern is the potential sockpuppeting that was happening in the main page edits. Also I agree with the edit for the main page. Just that I reincorporated the image into the body were it was before. Hopefully the talk page can be put to rest as it seems all agree on the anti-Communist poster. Take care and thanks!OyMosby (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems the other user is moving my input about the anti-Communist poster into the “off-topic” section you made. I moved it back but if they do it again what recourse do I have with further persona harassment by them? They replied with another screed to me off topic. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll keep an eye out and try to step in if it happens again. I'd suggest you stay out of it at this point, as that way it will be easier to deescalate. If over a day goes by without me doing anything, feel free to ping me again. signed,Rosguill talk 21:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I had made a final comment there. But will stay out from now as me responding likely won’t solve anything. Probably better I don't read their replies. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will say that you may be able to put a swift end to this by voluntarily refactoring your own comment so that we can keep the relevant parts in the discussion and move the foruming under the hat. signed,Rosguill talk 13:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you mentioned to ping you if they are at it again. Well the user Ztoni998 continues their wiki abuse and blatantly mislead in their diff saying “90% of my comment is off topic and claims only THEIR comments were placed in a separate section which is false and then proceed to move their massive essay that has nothing to do with the topic at hand by merging their discussion about the propaganda posters to their rant against me. Manipulating the text to make it seem like their response is about the talk topic even though they made it before I commented. Clear manipulation and misrepresentation. This is clear disruption and wish for last say. Otherwise why would they suddenly merge two different comments of theirs? I never called them by name in the first place. There were a number of new accounts and IPs removing sourced content from the article. My side commentary is not most of my comment nor going at anyone personally, but I did counter an argument put forth on the page many times. Could you please warn them to cease this nonsense drama? I stoped arguing with them and let them have the last word But they keep tampering with existing comments and the isolation war section you put in.


 * The individual is clearly trying to cleverly combine his original separate comment about the Propaganda article and his rant against me about Serbs and Croats and other nonsense. I didn’t address them personally in the first place and their reply is three times in size and nothing but personal targeting and rants about foreign politics. This is definitely violating Wiki policy. Again most of my comment is mainly about the topic at hand as it explains that one’s perception of a side being “wronged” is not a valid argument to removed RS cited images or changes to the article. That was the main point. Their reply was personally to me and nothing to do with the article.


 * I feel I shouldn’t have to censor myself because of some new random online harassment. It would set a bad example enabling more of this behavior. If you could warn them it would be much appreciated. Their perception of “fair” is yet again warped. If it is to be fair perhaps they should remove the plethora of mass essays the left on the talk that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Here are all their unrelated comments they post all over the talk page that they should hide as well if they want “fairness”. Examples [1 ][2 ] [3 ]


 * I know you may see this as a minisucle matter not worth getting worked up by but we shouldn’t enable this. They will do this again with others. If you could please warn them maybe they will listen. Lord knows the Balkan curse is real on Wikipedia haha as you know. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please just let this go. Their most recent edits (which were from several weeks ago) didn't touch your comment at all. The diffs you're providing here are from more than a month ago. I can guarantee that nobody else watching that page is even reading anything the two of you are saying anymore. Right now nobody has crossed the line to something that would merit real sanctions, and issuing warnings will only inflame the situation. I'm sure the situation is unpleasant for you, but it's nothing compared to the amount of drama and mudslinging that will occur if this gets escalated to an administrative issue.


 * As a separate note, while it is valid to come to me or other admins for advice or to take action on a super obvious violation of editing norms (e.g. legal threats, absurd amounts of edit warring, blatant vandalism or slur slinging), these kinds of minor civility issues are not ones that I can take action on when you raise them on my talk page because it can give the impression that I am playing favorites (and from a structural perspective, I would be: you've gotten to plead your case across multiple paragraphs here, and chatted me up on other topics as well. Ztoni hasn't said anything to me). If you really have an issue, take it to ANI where it can get a fairer hearing. Or alternatively, talk to Ztoni directly and try to reach some mutual understanding of deescalation. signed,Rosguill talk 15:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is they are misleading by taking two of their separate entries, one at me the other actually about the article to dance around the War Talk filter you set up. But you are right. Just gets on my nerves when people like them like to always have it there way. And I’m likely first of yet deal with said user. I’ll just move on then. As annoyed I am with their behavior. And essentially ignoring you and doing what they like. Take care. I’ll stop pestering you with this drama. I definitely would take this to ANI and waste more of anyone’s time. Thanks for once again getting me to see clear instead of red Rosguill. I envy your coo patience. ;) OyMosby (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding username change
Dear , I have changed my username to AngusMEOW. I was wondering if this would have an impact on my NPPschool? Thank you! AngusMEOW ( chatter  •  paw trail ) 13:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , not at all, but thanks for letting me know. signed,Rosguill talk 16:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Antifa (United States)
Thank you for your closure here. You wrote there is no consensus on [political position], so I was wondering if it would be fine to remove left-wing from the first sentence as we already mention it later on by stating Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism which gives more context and in my view is a compromise in that the label is used as those in favour wanted, but it is put in the proper context and not as the very first sentence as those opposed argued. Or perhaps simply reword it from left-wing, anti-fascist to anti-fascist and left-wing to avoid the awkward comma. Let me know what you think and thanks in advance. Davide King (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , given that it involves a different phrasing from what was at issue in the discussion, I think that it would be ok to treat this as a bold edit. signed,Rosguill talk 07:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rosguill, after your reply here, removed it with no explanation, I reverted this, and now Davide King has removed it again after pointing to his post on your talk page. I note he came very close to violating the page's 1RR, removing it twice in 25 hours. Rosguill, your closure still stands and should not be changed based on one editor's pushing, and I note that you here call Davide King's proposal a "bold edit", seemingly referencing WP:BRD. But we are already past the B and the R, and the D frankly was the RfC which we should not have to waste time relitigating. Davide King alone does not get to unilaterally override your clear decision based on the fact that most other editors at the RfC specifically wanted Antifa's position on the political spectrum to be in the lead sentence, regardless of what he personally thinks about how the rest of the lead covers it (and he was heavily involved in the discussion, so he was heard already). If Davide King will not self-revert, I have to insist that Rosguill enforce the closure of the RfC by reinstating the text. If that does not work, then I have no choice left but to go to WP:ANI. Crossroads -talk- 16:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I self-reverted already as soon as you raised the issue and it is fine. However, if you are consistent, you ought to remove the mention of militancy (as it wikilinks to the same thing) and the sentence mentioning far-left and militant (which I have added) as there is no consensus for either, per the closure. As noted by Rosquil in the closure itself, "the lead has since been fleshed out to provide a more detailed description of Antifa's tactics, militant and otherwise." I believe my compromise is a better solution for both those who were for inclusion and those who were for exclusion from the lead. Davide King (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, clearly there's still disagreement so we should go back to the revision I imposed with the close, and discuss Davide King's proposed changes further if they want to pursue them. signed,Rosguill talk 16:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rosguill, I just did revert to that. Per closure, left-wing in the lead, but not far-left and militant which I boldly added myself to the lead before the closure. Just to note, no one reverted my proposed compromise version other than complaining my removal of the awkward left-wing, anti-fascist wording today. By the way, I did not remove left-wing from the lead; it is still there and has always been there. It is simply put in proper context as being the [left-wing] ideologies antifa members tend to subscribe to, so I thought my edit was fine since I did not actually remove any mention of left-wing from the lead. I noticed only now Rosquill stated first sentence. Still, no one reverted or complained about my other proposal. Crossroads did not complain about me adding far-left and militant to the lead, perhaps because they supported the addition in the RfC, despite the fact the closure was clear that there is no consensus to add either. My bad, although I was trying to be bold and it seemed to be fine until today. If a discussion is needed, then so be it. Davide King (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rosguill, instead of reverting to the version you imposed with the close, Davide King has now decided unilaterally to remove some other portion of the lead as a "compromise", because he added it several weeks ago. Is this proper? I think not. Discussion has begun here. I believe that edit should be reverted to match the version imposed by your close. Crossroads -talk- 17:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion on the article talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 17:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi
Just to let you know I just change the Redirect for Canadian Pizza to "List of pizza varieties by country#Canada" Andrewbdfe (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

NPP school
I am a moderately-experienced editor and a new New Page Patroller (NNPP?) -- but I don't think I'm competent at NPP. I would like to get good at the job so that I can help out more. Do you have time to accept me as an NPP student? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can probably help, but I'd like to know a bit more about what you're looking for first. Which parts of NPP do you feel like you need help with? signed,Rosguill talk 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, see how I messed up with the first article I reviewed, John Fletcher Dixon-Stewart. I probably should have draftified it immediately, because it was a (well-written) genealogical article that made no claim of notability for its subject. (I also tried to find more information to establish notability but couldn't.) I thought about PROD or AfD but did not want to discourage the creator. So I notified the creator that it needed to establish notability, but the creator didn't do any more work on the article. So today I draftified it, which I probably should have done on the first day. I am not sure how NPP school would work, but what I imagined was that you would flag a few articles for me to review and then afterward tell me if I made the right choices. I didn't check if you are in my time zone, which is Boston-area. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , in hindsight, I think that PROD would have been more appropriate than draftifying. While not wanting to discourage editors is a good instinct, in practice it's better to nominate for deletion and send them an invitation to the teahouse than it is to draftify. Marking for deletion brings more editors into the discussion, ensures a visibly fair hearing, and provides a primer on notability and article creation. Moving the article to draftspace effectively silos it off from other editors (except for the AfC reviewer, months later), and many new editors get discouraged and give up at that time. The Notability tag a few days earlier is enough of a fair warning for the editor that the article isn't up to snuff. Draftify should really only be used to quarantine suspected COI/UPE content, for articles that are about likely-notable subjects but that are patently unacceptable in their current form (e.g. due to BLP issues or extremely non-neutral wording), or for articles that are about subjects that aren't notable but may contain content that could be reused for another article (e.g., article about a non-notable book that includes biographical information about a likely-notable author).


 * As for actual lessons, the article flagging process you suggested works well. The time zone really isn't much of an issue. Other lesson models include the full WP:NPPSCHOOL course, which is more geared for people who may not fully understand notability or other relevant concepts. Sometimes I also do an ad-hoc version of the course for more advanced students to target specific gaps in knowledge. Assuming you still want to do the article flagging instruction method, roughly how many articles a week would you want to review this way? signed,Rosguill talk 18:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant
Seems like instead of answering me you were waiting me to write something in NK 2020 topic. Hats off. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the terms of being topic-banned are quite clear. I was actually busy all morning and only just got back to my computer to see that you continued to post at an article affected by your ban. I have addressed several rounds of your concerns both at ANI and earlier at article talk pages and have nothing further to say to you. signed,Rosguill talk 21:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your point and I want someone else to join our discussion. The ban enforced by you is not fairly justified and your neutrality as admin is questionable. Mirhasanov (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have been topic banned: you don't like it, but that's the way it is, you must not edit in that topic area until you successfully appeal that ban. You are now coming to the talk page of the admin who implemented that ban, making sarcastic comments. If you persist with this you will be blocked entirely. Walk away, go do sonething else. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * my ban is unfair ! I demand independent discussion and doesn't recognize Rosguill's decision.Mirhasanov (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Others have already participated in the discussion. You're welcome to continue calling for an intervention at ANI, but until somebody else takes up that request my sanction stands, and is fully within my discretion as an administrator when dealing with a DS-topic like the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict. signed,Rosguill talk 21:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As a final note, I'll add that I have merely partially blocked you from one page for violating the ban. I would have been within my rights to impose much harsher sanctions but didn't think they would be necessary. Had I actually been out to get you or biased in my conduct as you keep suggesting, I wouldn't be treating you with kid gloves. signed,Rosguill talk 21:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need kind gloves that is corrupted. You take side and again your ban is unjustified. Now you are acting like you are owner of the topic and it is you deciding who may edit and who can't. You know that I don't know how to do it and ask other adming to assist. I asked your help but instead helping me you silently waited me doing something wrong and start banning me. You were busy enough not to answer me in ANI but suddenly find time to document links that proves my comments. Mirhasanov (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , please stop bothering me on my talk page. If you have issues with the ban take them up at ANI and see if someone else hears you out. signed,Rosguill talk 21:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , respect this request. If you post here again about this issue, you'll be blocked from editing entirely. If you seriously want to ask for a review of the ban, you are allowed to do so, but my previous advice stands - if I were you, I'd drop this, and go edit some other topic area. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Threatening you? I think it important to tell you that an admin warning you over violating a sanction is not threatening you. Do please read up on what these sanctions are and how they are enforced. Best, -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

A query
Am I allowed to edit an article that I have proposed for deletion at AfD? I was removing some content that wasn't there in the reliable independent source from Aliza Ayaz(an article which was first started by in 2019, if you look at their edit history it looks like their account was created just to promote the subject, a lot of spam content in the article was already removed by other editors, and I am also removing them too. I feel that the subject clearly fails WP:GNG and also SNG(for academic), would be glad if you can help me with this and give your feedback. Thank you so much! ^_^  AngusMEOW  ( chatter  •  paw trail ) 17:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're allowed to, but it may not be a great idea. It can give the impression that you may be trying to sabotage the article (especially if you're removing content, even if you're totally right about it from a policy-perspective), and will be wasted effort if the article ends up deleted. If there's something in the article that you think could mislead people into voting keep (e.g. impressive claims not backed up by sources), just address that in the AfD discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I won't touch the article. My AfD comments weren't up to the mark, if it goes for keep, can I propose for deletion again with proper addressing? AngusMEOW  ( chatter  •  paw trail ) 17:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd advise against that, people would take that as tendentious. As for your comments, while I would've name dropped GNG earlier, I don't think there's an obvious stronger case for deletion that you could have made. What's more, the article seems to be destined for draft space at this rate. signed,Rosguill talk 17:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok! Yes, it will be draftified. :) AngusMEOW  ( chatter  •  paw trail ) 17:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect patrolling
Hi I'm wondering if you can just add me to redirect-autopatrolled list? I keep getting notifications of redirect patrols you do, and to be frank, it's annoying. I am familiar with policies around redirect creation and only create them where needed, such as while going through this list and finding that an article already exists at a different name. Thanks. – SD0001  (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , it looks like you're a bit short of the mark where I usually add people to the list, having only created 51 redirects (I generally add editors who have over 100 redirects with few-to-no deletions between them). Additionally, unlike the real autopatrolled permission, getting added to the list isn't going to spare you of notifications, it's just going to have a bot check you off instead of a NPP editor. If you find the notifications annoying, you can turn them off by going to Preferences>Notifications and unchecking the "Page review" box. signed,Rosguill talk 15:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

RfD closure
Hi Rosguill, thanks for closing Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_5. Just a small comment since you stated that the majority was for keeping the redirects; actually, this was the case only at the beginning of the discussion, but overall, there were 3 keeps, 3 deletes (originally 4, including my own vote, but one later changed to neutral) and 2 neutral votes (including the one who changed his minds), so counting the numbers there really was parity, thus no consensus (unfortunately). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thinking back, I may have counted 2pou's struck vote as keep? Not much of a difference either way though. signed,Rosguill talk 16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle acts strange
I was wondering if you could help me in removing the 2nd nomination of Hyperlink InfoSystem. My twinkle is not functioning properly I don't know why. While tagging the article for deletion, Twinkle threw me an error and when i tried for the second time, I ended up creating two AFDs.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I fixed up the nominations. You may want to report this as a bug at WT:TWINKLE signed,Rosguill talk 19:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will keep that in mind and thanks for help :)--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * By any chance, do you remember what error did it throw? – SD0001  (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly remember what error it threw but it had to do with AFd (step 3).--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail
Hi Rosguill, Just checking to see if you got my email?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I had already replied signed,Rosguill talk 02:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Revdel on Ramen?
Hello! Please take a look at and consider rev-delling the full-name reference to some targeted young person. Thanks! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that revdel is unnecessary, as I was totally unable to find any trace online of either individual mentioned in the edit, and it didn't include any defamatory information. That having been said, either page protection or a block is on deck if the disruption continues. signed,Rosguill talk 16:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for taking a look! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Closure of Village_pump_(proposals)
Hi Rosguill, I noticed that you closed this discussion, but you didn't make the necessary changes to the sidebar. Is there a particular reason why you didn't do that? Was it your mistake? Let me know. Interstellarity (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I got distracted afterward and it slipped my mind. I've gone ahead and made the changes. I wasn't even aware of how tooltips and the sidebar were coded prior to doing this, but I seem to have got it working on the first try. signed,Rosguill talk 15:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's OK. I saw the changes you made to the sidebar. Interstellarity (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar
Although we know Help:Introduction has proven to not encourage people to learn more about editing |Help:Introduction|Help:Introduction_to_Wikipedia|Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/1|Help:Introduction_to_editing_with_Wiki_Markup/1|Help:Introduction_to_editing_with_VisualEditor/1|Help:Introduction_to_navigating_Wikipedia/1|Help:Introduction_to_the_Manual_of_Style/1 Stats. I got to tap my hat off to you for a good close...all points accounted for. Your advice to create a new page that was suggested by long time editors  will be the way forward when we are saturated by mobile device editors. We will have to advice people "how to" that dont have the toolbar because they are in mobile view. Thank you for your work...great job.-- Moxy 🍁 21:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll thank you for the compliment on the face of it, but I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to by Your advice to create a new page that was suggested by long time editors, as I'm not sure what part of the close meets that description. signed,Rosguill talk 21:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the rfc length, format for accessibility and assumption all are on desktop view is a problem + .. we can do better, and that we should prioritize introductions that more briefly explain what Wikipedia is. In the absence of a status quo to fall back on, the outcome of this discussion is to adopt the frontrunner, although editors can continue to workshop better solutions. We can do better....we can make it short, we can format it so all have easy access, we can try to attract mobile users.-- Moxy 🍁 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, thanks for the clarification. In my mind that was more of a summary than a recommendation, hence the confusion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Q
Can you have a look at this and other edits? It's outside my expertise, but it's a weird set of edits for a first-timer. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, that doesn't really make any sense for a new editor to know (or care) about that kind of gnoming. I can't say that the actual edits ring any bells as far as disruptive editors. There's a good chance that this is an attempt to pad their edit count. signed,Rosguill talk 02:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)