User talk:Rosguill/Archive 22

Feda Almaliti neutrality flag
Hello! I'd first like to thank you very much for reviewing the Feda Almaliti page. I greatly appreciate it. I saw you have disputed the neutrality of the article. However, you have not pointed to specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies on the talk page. I'd like to address the issues and would appreciate your specific commentary as to why you have flagged this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednikki (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the article gives a lot of attention to various opinions held by Almaliti, but mostly cites primary and otherwise non-independent sources to support them. There was one claim in particular that I flagged with that was clearly both non-neutral and not supported by the provided source, but I think that a lot of the content about Alamaliti's perspectives is not currently supported by citations that justify its inclusion, even where it is verifiable. signed,Rosguill talk 21:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the specific citation in question. Please review when you have a chance. --Rednikki (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that the article still has due weight issues; if we can only cite a specific opinion of Almaliti's to an article she wrote, we probably shouldn't be including it in the Wikipedia article. signed,Rosguill talk 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

kindly adopt me.
Hello, i have seen your name in the adoptees list, i am mutahir from kashmir and i am interested in adding kashmiri notable people to the wiki, i have been told that i require an adoption and i think i might be able to learn a lot from you, you can give me daily tasks so that i get complete hold over wikipedia editing and policies. i have made a lot of mistakes in my past in wikipedia and i don't want to repeat them ever, so thats why i am looking for guidance. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid I can't commit to taking you on as a student right now, as I don't think our interests overlap sufficiently. I would suggest that you get a bit more experience working with improving existing articles before you set off on trying to write new ones from scratch. Task Center is a great way to find articles that need different kinds of editing work, and is organized based on difficulty. signed,Rosguill talk 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, i will surely look onto it. Hums4r (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of redirect
Hi, you deleted Blood grouping and crossmatching last year as a result of this RFD (which I started). However, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to restore it, because there's now an appropriate target for it at Blood compatibility testing. I could recreate it myself but that seems unfair to the original creator. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's quite considerate of you. ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 03:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Spicy (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

COI and associated connected contributor
Are you new to this, or have you just not been challenged to do things the way the documentation states before? COI states that Connected contributor should be added to the talk page. The fact that you simply suspect a CoI is also problematic and so the template is probably not correct to be placed at this point. I'll let you correct your errors before I see advice from the larger community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , my understanding is that if there was simply a suspicion of COI, tagging the article and following up with them on talk pages was standard, and that connected contributor templates should only be used once there has been an admission of COI. I think that given their very narrow interest in Maveryx over 10 years of editing indicates that a COI is highly likely. signed,Rosguill talk 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Suspicion is not the standard listed in the template. We should be doing so only if it is biased or has serious problems. You also have not opened a discussion to explain "non-neutral about the article" as is requested. So I am no closer now to knowing what the problem with the article is as a result of the other editor's involvement. If you think a CoI is highly like, then open a discussion but do not place a tag of shame on the article. Could the problems be resolved with simple edits? You've made your point, but I think leaving the template is disruptive at this point since it's a suspicion (it's a good suspicion, but is undeclared and so still just a suspicion). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I followed up with additional comments at the article in question while you were writing this. signed,Rosguill talk 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I believe you can make your point without that “tone” which is borderline condescending. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the borderline condescending tone? I asked for there to be a discussion and there was none. I simply commented on it. I am being neither patronizing nor acting a way that is superior to Rosguill. The template Rosguill used has a process and it was not followed. That is all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, while the Are you new to this bit in the first comment was maybe a little condescending, I think this has been handled amicably at the relevant article's talk page and can be put to bed. signed,Rosguill talk 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know things have been resolved amicably, Rosguill like you rightfully stated the was what I found to be very disrespectful and condescending. In any case all looks well now. Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Blankenbaker
I was actually in the process of creating a UTP for the user who added that copyrighted material, hoping they would stick around and learn how to write a proper bio. Not sure why you did a G12 Meant redirect. 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC) The article in the queue has had issues since 22:32, 5 August 2008 - I start working on a few of the redirects/backlog, and wham - editors are doing stuff to my work before I even finish. I'll just back off - I've got some new articles to work on.  Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , not sure what you're saying here. I saw the G12 tag you placed and revdel'd accordingly signed,Rosguill talk 22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant redirect because I was going to use that G12 to demonstrate the problem to, and possibly work with them in creating a proper article for Blankenbaker. Can't you read my mind? 🤣 I just finished creating the UTP for Help2Educate, and added the Welcome template when your redirect flashed on my screen. I was a little thrown off balance because the ink was still wet on the paper and things happened rather quickly - it's a reflex from my old publishing days. I'm a little slow when working at NPP because I'm usually multi-tasking and have a plan, which requires my intense focus. I'm usually more concerned about CSD's not getting tended to fast enough. I apologize if my tone came off too matter-of-factly...which helps explain why I typically use emojis, and have even customized a few templates, like , , and , the latter of which I probably deserve right now.  Atsme  💬 📧 22:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , no worries, I wasn't offended just confused, and now you've cleared that up. As far as teaching the editor in question, I would think that the revdel'd history is an equivalent lesson to a G12, no? signed,Rosguill talk 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, provided we can avoid getting trapped in Groundhog Day with repeated removals of the redirect. Uh oh, have I become overly systematic with my routines, or worse, have I become Rain Man?!! SMirC-scream.svg  Atsme 💬 📧 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification
Dear Rosguill. The notificaton you left on my Talk page says: If you have clarification questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

A severe punishment like a ban requires strong evidence. Would you mind clarifying the following issues? I'm considering an appeal and so it would be helpful to understand the reasoning behind your decision before I do that.


 * 1) What was your reason for ignoring my requests to provide evidence in support of the allegations? Example: I'd like to know on what grounds people support or reject complaints.(...) If anyone has questions they're welcome on my Talk page. . The unsubstantiated allegations continued even after your action. My reference to Wikipedia policy went unheeded too.. One commenter simply linked to definitions of concepts, not to diffs, others didn't provide any diffs or diffs that did not support the allegations.
 * 2) Please explain why my rebuttals were not taken into consideration? Due process would require an impartial hearing of both sides and scrutiny of the evidence provided by both sides. In my "detailed response" and several comments I've provided evidence of several falsehoods in the complaint. Irrefutable evidence of falsehoods and manipulations trumps language issues, I would think.
 * 3) Would you please provide diffs for these statements: Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. And: Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC .... Please explain "improper". Improper suggests "unwarranted", "uncivil", "insincere" and/or "lacking evidence." I can't judge this without specific information.
 * 4) What was the reason for accepting the case? The ANI complaint was basically about three minor content disputes. Most of the other comments posted by the accuser were also content discussions that belong on the article's Talk page (including incidents that were actually resolved by me compromising). The alleged behavioral issues were either frivolous (even the filing of an Arbcom request supported by 25 diffs was listed as a behavioral issue); or they were old and already dealt with; or were gathered from discussions on other editors' Talk pages rather than the article's Talk page; or were simply invented. In my comments I've provided detailed evidence for several falsehoods in the complaint, see point 2. Those are violations of WP:IUC. In fact all examples listed as rude or uncivil - except 2C - were violated in this case by the accusing parties.
 * 5) Was there a reason for not treating everyone as equals? Most of the comments posted by the filing editor and by others contained personal attacks, some more severe than anything I've ever been accused of, e.g..
 * 6) I'm curious to learn why practically every item on the ANI advice list was ignored: . Care to explain?
 * 7) I'm still trying to get my head around the giant leap from I think that this may be closed without action. to: It seems my last comment calling for a close was premature. and immediately issuing a ban. This needs more explaining than the two diffs you provided which turned out to be a difference of opinion about a content issue. Would you mind clarifying and responding to my explanation, copied here:

Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editors evaluating a dispute are not as a rule required to provide diffs to back up their assessments of the situation as it stands, particularly when evidence had already been provided. You characterization of allegations as unsubstantiated is at odds with my reading of Talk:In Praise of Blood.
 * Rebuttals were unnecessary, as I had read through the talk page discussion and formed my opinions based on that discussion (as well as the ArbCom case filing), rather than based on HoC's specific accusations.
 * This list is not exhaustive, but I think is illustrative
 * , insults directed at HoC
 * , sarcasm and insults directed at Buidhe
 * , sarcasm directed at HoC
 * , responding to repeated requests for sources with the same source that did not back up the claim for which sources were requested.
 * I think that the phrase "accepting the case" is not really an accurate description of how ANI works generally or of my participation in this discussion specifically, but to answer the main point of your question, because I was looking for ANI cases that needed additional input from an uninvolved admin and this was the oldest discussion that I felt like I could help with.
 * HoC's behavior was taken into account, and was the reason that I called for the case to be closed without action at certain points, where it seemed like you could amicably resolve the content disputes and go back to editing constructively. I changed my mind about this after seeing the continued discussion at Talk:In Praise of Blood on January 14th and 15th, and after re-reading the original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation first against buidhe and later against HoC.
 * Believe me, I'm as frustrated that this advice was ignored as well.
 * HoC asked you for a source that stated that double genocide was the main topic of the book. You provided a source that stated that the book rehabilitates double genocide theory. Had this been the only instance, or even one of a few instances, of failing to cooperate appropriately it would not have been a big deal. But as an example of continued behavior, coupled with a sarcastic jab, even after being blocked for personal attacks and knowing full well that an ANI discussion related to this behavior was ongoing, it made it clear that you are not able to collaborate on this subject matter on Wikipedia at this time.
 * I'll note as well that my notice to you on your talk page was intended to invite questions regarding the scope and the enforcement of the ban, not an invitation to relitigate the ANI case. I decided to actually respond to these questions in the hopes that they can put the matter to rest. signed,Rosguill talk 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll note as well that my notice to you on your talk page was intended to invite questions regarding the scope and the enforcement of the ban, not an invitation to relitigate the ANI case. I decided to actually respond to these questions in the hopes that they can put the matter to rest. signed,Rosguill talk 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, very enlightening but also a little disturbing, unfortunately. Allow me to respond:
 * Which evidence was provided? And I mean evidence, not allegations.
 * Here you admit that my evidence was not taken into account, because you had already formed your opinion. This was obvious - nobody took it into account - but raises serious questions about fair play.
 * The previous ANI closed on 22 December. The first two of your diffs are from before that date. This means that they were already dealt with and you're in fact re-opening an old case. The second ANI was about other issues and other "evidence". Nevertheless, you might want to consider this information:
 * Two important things you've overlooked: The remark: the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus. referred to an agreemnt we made on EdJohnston's Talk page. but this agreement was suddenly abandoned without a word of warning.. The other remark was wrong, I admit, but it was made in the spirit of other Talk page posts that addressed me in the same manner, such as: ...if you want your POV to be represented on Wikipedia you would be better off publishing your own review on the book. Or: If you can't correctly understand talk page posts that then perhaps you should try editing Wikipedia in a different language. Or: your clumsy methods repeatedly violate WP:POV and WP:BLP. And so on.
 * This is actually a civil explanation of what the field of genocide studies encompasses. There's no sarcasm in it anywhere. The response to it was, however, a perfect example of sarcasm, see:
 * No sarcasm intended. You're reading something into it. Besides, I've explained this exchange already. I hope you're not implying I'm being dishonest over this.
 * ...the same source that did not back up the claim That's your POV, not a fact.
 * So you were just a passer-by? May I ask if you have any relevant knowledge of the topic, or about complaint procedures?
 * ... original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation Did I? Don't forget that there was editing activity going on at the same time. You don't see that on the Talk page of course but is part of the discussion. Editing can be done in a manner to spite others. What you see on the Talk page is an effect of that. When HoC arrived at the scene they were aggressive, accusing me of biased editing and saying the article was turned into an "attack page". This attitude never changed. They also use framing language, ascribing opinions and intentions to me which I don't have. That's very suggestive to outsiders. For instance: Saflieni, meanwhile, does not want the article to discuss RPF war crimes Find such a casual remark a hundred times and you'll swear it's the truth.
 * You could have applied a few.
 * Vidal's explanation is very clear. Not sure why you insist on this point. Besides, Colette Braeckman says the same thing: "Throughout the stories and elements taken from reports written for the ICTR, a common thread appears, an increasingly obvious intention: to lead the reader to conclude that another genocide was carried out in Rwanda and then in Congo, that of the Hutus and potential opponents, even Tutsis, and this for the sole benefit of the combatants from Uganda, these former refugees eager to recover their land and to exercise unchallenged power." (Au fil des récits et des éléments extraits des rapports rédigés à l’intention du TPIR, un fil rouge apparaît, une intention de plus en plus évidente : mener le lecteur à conclure qu’un autre génocide a été mené au Rwanda puis au Congo, celui des Hutus et des opposants potentiels fussent ils Tutsis, et cela au seul bénéfice des combattants venus d’Ouganda, ces anciens réfugiés désireux de récupérer leurs terres et d’exercer un pouvoir sans partage.)
 * Ironically, the part of Vidal's article that you used for you interpretation was actually quoted in the IPOB article (different context though) and deleted by HoC with this (sarcastic) edit summary: Association fallacy. Many murderers like pizza but this "fact" does not belong in the article about pizza. Saflieni (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't have time to rehash the ANI in this level of detail. You're going to have to look for advice elsewhere. signed,Rosguill talk 00:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Edmond J. Safra
Dear Rosguill, you very kindly left a message on my talk page. I have since followed your recommendations. Do you have any other advice to share with me? I would like to take every opportunity to improve my draft Draft:Edmond J. Safra Foundation. Thank you very much for your help! --TychéS19 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would follow the advice last left on the draft by an AfC reviewer, namely reformatting the article to comply with WP:MOS and ensuring that it doesn't include any non-neutral content. In order to help out AfC reviewers, I would also recommend identifying the WP:THREE best citations for establishing the subject's notability on the talk page so that a reviewer will be able to review the page more efficiently. Once you've done that, go ahead and submit the article for review. signed,Rosguill talk 18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a reviewer on these two pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBK_Partners

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAG_(investment_firm)

Hi. I'm looking for a reviewer for these two pages. If you have time would you mind reviewing and assigning a wikiproject rating to them if applicable?

Imcdc (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the articles are in the new pages queue and will be reviewed in due time, please be patient. signed,Rosguill talk 03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Weird AfD has been up for 3 weeks, something is busted?
Cyberbot said that this hadn't been transcluded right. Can you or a stalker figure out what is wrong and make it right? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , hm, I'm not sure what's going on and I am not super familiar with the AfD listings...looking through a search history, it seems like the AfD is listed in today's log, but I don't see any record of having ever been listed in a prior log. signed,Rosguill talk 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry to bother you outside your expertise. Let it just be a sign that I think of you as knowing lots. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks, haha. There's a solid chance that someone else stalking this page does know better, so it may yet prove useful. That having been said, given that it does appear to be transcluded to today's, presumably it can be closed normally in a week's time regardless of whatever the underlying issue was? signed,Rosguill talk 19:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi, User Fasterenergie is a sockpuppet of Noname_JR. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is not the appropriate place to file a sockpuppet report, please follow the instructions at WP:SPI. Additionally, you need evidence to motivate the report, or it will be dismissed out of hand. signed,Rosguill talk 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your message. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Staus quo on Carlo Bonomi
The status quo for the last 10+ years for Carlo Bonomi was to exist as a standalone article. You should nominate it for WP:AfD if you feel it is not deserving of that status. Replacing it with a redirect, unilaterally, is not consistent with policy. Thanks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , replacing it with a redirect is a perfectly acceptable WP:BOLD edit; now that you've contested it, an AfD would be the next step. Your prior edit to the page looked like a rote anti-vandalism response to the IP's poorly justified edits, which is why I felt that my approach was still appropriate given the circumstances. signed,Rosguill talk 21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

92.23.33.134
Can user:92.23.33.134 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ for 31 hours, although in the future I'd appreciate it if you could include a link to their contributions and a description of why you think a block is appropriate when requesting it, as that would reduce the work that I need to do in responding to your request. signed,Rosguill talk 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

2018 Northeast Conference Tournament
I reverted it back to the actual article because it's better to have that than just a redirect. There are specific articles for other years, so I created an article for the 2018 edition. It fits in with the other ones, so it should not have been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I've already explained at your talk page, the article was deleted following a consensus at AfD; in order to surmount that, you're going to need stronger citations to establish the subject's notability. I'd suggest that you read through our notability guidelines to get a better understanding of what is expected for articles. signed,Rosguill talk 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ação Games
In this 2019 diff you acknowledged that sources exist, but to this day, no RS have been cited. How do we know that what's written is compliant with WP:OR? I'm of the mind that unsourced articles should be sent to draft space rather than left in main space with unverifiable material. Add to that, an IP reverting my removal of what appears to be an irrelevant section titled Review and all it contains is a wikilink to that unsourced article. It doesn't make any sense to me so maybe I'm not aware of something I should be?  Atsme 💬 📧 14:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the ptWiki article has this source, which currently isn't much help but at one point had a video about the magazine's history; you can still read the description calling it one of the most beloved and oldest gaming publications in Brazil. I'd be inclined to trust UOL on this as a NEWSORG for what appears to be an uncontroversial topic. Regarding the IP's edit, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that such a review actually exists, but without a proper citation (and without any actual information about the review) they're obviously going about this the wrong way. signed,Rosguill talk 16:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll ping for his thoughts since he is well versed in the gaming stuff and might be able to help find some RS we can use. At this point, it's just not compliant with MOS or PAGs to simply create a section, call it "Review" and then add a WikiLink to unsourced article. The editor who reverted me should at least try to fix the problem - find some RS and write an actual review. Don't you think?  Atsme  💬 📧 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah I agree, the IP is out of line. signed,Rosguill talk 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not coming up with much more to substantiate this article (and that's possibly due to language barrier issues). This probably should be draft or the like until better sourcing can be used to confirm it. --M asem (t) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed deletion of Dhindoora
If I can bring some reliable sources that will the deletion process will be stoppedJogesh 69 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Jogesh 69
 * , they need to be reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, i.e. enough to meet WP:GNG. signed,Rosguill talk 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am saying the same. Just give me my answer. Whether the deletion process will be stopped or not after bringing some reliable sources Jogesh 69 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. signed,Rosguill talk 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

2018 Northeast Conference Tournament
Ok, I understand why you think it should be deleted, but I still don't understand why it should be. There are other articles for a specific tournament, why is the 2018 one being deleted? --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please don't create a new section every time you leave a message: use : to indent and leave a message in one of the existing sections. The last time the article was created, it was nominated for deletion for not meeting the general notability guideline; you can read the discussion where this was determined here. The argument that you are currently making is called "other stuff exists", which generally doesn't hold much water on Wikipedia because we are a volunteer project and our rules are inconsistently applied due to a lack of volunteers able to apply them. I would suggest that you direct further questions to the teahouse, our forum for helping new editors. signed,Rosguill talk 16:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , why is the 2018 getting a redirect, I still don't understand. It is better to have information there instead of a redirect.
 * , we are not supposed create articles about topics unless there are enough sources to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines. The article was challenged for falling short of the general notability guideline, the core part of our notability guidelines, and was deleted following an AfD discussion where all participating editors agreed that there wasn't enough coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. signed,Rosguill talk 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Performing a split relist/delete with XFD closer and a bundled discussion
See Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_27. There was clear consensus for the first redirect to be deleted, but the second redirect was not part of the original nomination, and no consensus had formed yet for it, so I wanted to relist the second redirect from the bundled discussion. The method of performing the delete-one-relist-other that I came up with is very clunky and might turn out to be confusing down the line with the discussion. Is there a better way to handle that sort of situation? Hog Farm Talk 19:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , when I'm in that scenario, I usually just relist and include a relisting comment that explains my assessment of the situation (e.g. "we seem to have a consensus for deletion for X but it's not clear what to do with Y"). It's not perfect, but no one's complained yet so it seems like a workable solution to me. signed,Rosguill talk 20:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Move (name-change) to article
Hi, Rosguill. When I tried submitting a move for the article Al-Eizariya, which we are trying to change its name to "Bethany," I went through the usual steps described under Requested controversial moves. The problem that I encountered was that there exists a Redirect in the name that we wish to use, namely "Bethany." According to the instructions given on the above page, "Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves." How do I go about alleviating this problem? I have followed the procedure so far, having written this on the article's Talk-Page: Bethany, but nothing happened. Your help is needed.Davidbena (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm pretty sure that the instruction of Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves. means that you can't request a move for a redirect; requesting them to a redirect should be fine. As for the template text, it looks like you accidentally wrote subst:AlEizariya instead of subst:requested move. signed,Rosguill talk 04:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. That makes sense. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Some guidance
Hi there! I saw that you were listed as an available adopter, and your interests seemed a lot like mine (especially in the language department), so I was hoping you could help me with some direction as to how to become a better contributor. Eventually I'd like to do something like the New Page Patrol and get some real translation work in, but right now I'm helping out with the cleanup backlog to get a feel for how to correct the most common errors. There's a lot of edits I've been making that I'm like 80% confident in, but that feel just a little off, and I think having someone experienced to bounce things off of—and that knows the best practices for stuff that comes up a lot (e.g., finding the most common translation for a foreign term)—would be really helpful. 20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah I'd be willing to help out, feel free to ask me questions when you run into issues. Is there anything you're struggling with right now? One thing that I would suggest is that while your signature looks cool, the custom alignment formatting may make it difficult to identify your posts in ongoing discussions, so I would suggest changing it to something that renders right after your comments. signed,Rosguill talk


 * , thanks so much! There are three issues that come to mind that I've encountered recently:
 * 1. On the Grotrian-Steinweg page, there's a section about "Admirers" which doesn't feel entirely within the realm of encyclopedic content, but which has also been included since before it was awarded as a "good article." What would be the reasoning for its inclusion in the article?
 * 2. How would I best go about asking for help in translating a particular term? For example, the Korean article for College admissions in South Korea makes use of the term "비교내신제," and my limited Korean has made it hard to source the most common translation of the term into English, so who would I reach out to to figure that out?
 * 3. The Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 page was at one point under the name "Herpes B virus" (in line with all other translations of the page), but was then changed to its current formal name. In all the sources I could find, Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 is always listed as the secondary name, next to "monkey B virus" or just "B virus" alone. The issue is that it's a relatively even split between including and excluding the "monkey" portion, and the official name is a nice enough fallback that it might be better to keep it. At the same time, B virus already redirects to Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1, so it wouldn't be a loss of clarity to move the page, but it's also not quite as common as "monkey B virus." Would it be better to keep it the way it is, or move it to one of the simpler, more common names?
 * 4. Finally, all of these revolve around not having any other opinions on the topic; where should I post things like these so that I can hear what other Wikipedia users think? –LogStar100 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Admirers section doesn't seem appropriate (I also note that the GA reviewer was blocked a few months after that review was completed). I think that you would be justified in WP:BOLDly removing the section.
 * I'm afraid we don't have much in the way of formal resources for that. The best you could do would be to ask on the article's talk page, and at the noticeboard at the relevant WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Korea.
 * Looks like the article was boldly moved in 2019, and you've already started an RM discussion on the talk page. I don't really have much of an opinion on the underlying issue, but an RM is appropriate if you think that the name should be changed so you're on the right track.
 * You should always start on the talk page of the affected article, with the next step being a relevant WikiProject (if the article is low traffic, you can post a discussion notice at the WikiProject from the get go). Depending on the nature of the issue, there may be centralized noticeboards related to the issue, such as the reliable sources noticeboard, the original research noticeboard, or the neutrality noticeboard. signed,Rosguill talk 20:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of SDSU Sports Deck for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SDSU Sports Deck 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/SDSU Sports Deck 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. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hog Farm
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration
 * The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! A friendly question.
Hello! I just created my account and was trying to figure out what to do and I came across the Adopt-a-user page and I saw you there. Are you still taking on new apprentices? I'd love to start giving back but I don't know where to start! I'm a fast learner and will pull my weight. Please let me know. Thank you. WanderingSeer (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , what sort of editing are you interested in? If you aren't sure where you want to help out, I would suggest checking out the WP:Task center, which describes and provides links to a whole bunch of different types of Wikipedia work of varying levels of difficulty. signed,Rosguill talk 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really too sure haha. I looked through some of the tutorials and tried reading up on some of the policies and decided to just look at recent edits and see if I could find anything worth editing. It's been kinda hard because i'm not sure what i'm looking for. I've also just been looking for vandalism too. WanderingSeer (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , hm, well to get you started, here are some suggestions.
 * If you like doing behind the scenes work or love thinking about how best to sort information, try out Categorization tasks
 * If you're reasonably confident in your writing skills, try out Copy editing tasks
 * If you like doing research and investigation, try out Fact-checking tasks
 * You can find links for all of these tasks at the WP:Task center. Feel free to try out all of the above if they strike your fancy. Anti-vandalism work is also worth trying too, although I generally recommend that new editors do more than just anti-vandalism, because while anti-vandalism is important, it doesn't teach you as much about editing articles well, just how to spot the most extreme of bad-faith contributors. signed,Rosguill talk 16:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go take a look then. Thank you. WanderingSeer (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving page to Draft (Draft:Bamboo_Group_(company))
Hello Rosguill! Thanks you for reviewing my article (“Bamboo Group (company)”) First of all I want to thank you very much for for your interest and participation. I am a beginner and any advice would be useful to me! I really want to make it better, but you have not pointed to any specific issues. When you will have a bit of time, would you mind to give me your specific commentary or advice about what needs to be done? Maybe you have any other commentary for me? I would be happy to use every opportunity to improve my project. Have a wonderful day! Cartifdet (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , at this point, please just comply with the COI disclosure request that I left on your talk page (and please do reply on your talk page, rather than here, so that other editors will see it as well and won't think you're ignoring the disclosure request), after which you can submit the draft for review by clicking the blue button in the AfC template at the top of the draft. signed,Rosguill talk 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello ! I did everything as you said, Thank you for your advice! If it doesn't bother you too much, could you please take a look at another my draft to point me out to its problems? It is a large company that used to be an Estonian government agency. I have looked into your links about Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability policies, (as well as notability guidelines), but I would be extremely grateful for at least a quick glance. Thanks in advance! Cartifdet (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't have time right now to do a particularly thorough review; at a glance the article looks ok, but I'm not familiar with the sources you cited so I can't assess notability very well without putting in a lot more research. signed,Rosguill talk 15:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nikhil Kamath
Hi User:Rosguill I'm here because of your direct review at Draft:Nikhil Kamath. I may not be an expert in this but yes I just declared Wikipedia COI WP:COI on the draft's talk page and also at my user page. I apologize for not declaring it in the beginning. I belong to the organization and attempting to make this page by adhering to most of the Wikipedia norms such as WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and at the same time keeping it completely neutral WP:NPOV. This required a pretty amount of reading at my end so that I can stay as much close to Wikipedia norms. I just submitted the draft for your 2nd review. Could you assist please? -Syncronyte (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * responded on other editor's talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 03:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Labiodental ejective affricate
@: Hi, what kinds for sources are you talking about? i gave 3 sources on the page what else do you want? some of the related pages dont even have sources in them and this page has 3 AleksiB 1945 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , IIRC, the sources provided in the last version of that article that I looked at only mentioned the labiodental ejective affricate, and did not discuss it in depth. For that level of coverage, it's more appropriate to have coverage of it as part of an article about a more general subject, such as Ejective consonant signed,Rosguill talk 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @: in depth? there are rarely any sources for those langs and in most of the related pages to this, there are barely sourced and the sources are just phoible AleksiB 1945 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , then as I said, it's more appropriate to add coverage of it to an article like Ejective consonant. signed,Rosguill talk 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Aggressive user
Hi User:Rosguill , I hope you are well during this harsh times. I would like to ask for your help. I have the feeling that some users from The Italian Wikipedia are trying to take down the page Giovanni Morassutti due to some sort of "spite". One user in particular is using aggressive tones questioning the meaning of cultural entreprenrship, reliable sources and taking down sections. What do you reccomend in this kind of scenarios ? Please let me know when you can. Many thanks--Doratig (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , at a glance, the sources that Praxidicae has been removing are in fact quite poor, an assortment of blogs and PR sites. Right now I would suggest making a case for the subject's notability at AfD. Please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors; it is highly unlikely that they are motivated by "spite" as you suggest. signed,Rosguill talk 20:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Rosguill, thanks for your reply. The reason why I have mentioned the word "spite" is because in my opinion the user is using aggressive tones in his comments and, since there has been recently a discussion on the itwikiquote about the activity of the subject as a cultural entrepreneur, I have founded strange that this nomination for deletion of the article on the en.wikipedia came up just now. The article has been reviewed by you three years ago and by now it is also present on several other wikipedias. To be honest with you, sometimes I have the feeling that on the italian wikipedia they have added their own criteria which is not always easy to understand. With that being said, I do agree with you that the sources been removed by Praxidicae were in fact quite poor therefore I have updated the article by adding in depth coverage reliable third party sources of the subject. I was wondering if you would be so kind to find the time to take a look at the article and eventually partecipate in the case. I would really appreciate your feedback.--Doratig (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'll take a look at the sources myself at some point in the next few days, but you should probably make a case yourself at the AfD first. signed,Rosguill talk 03:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Doratig (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Hi Rosguill, when you say make a case on AfD do you mean open another discussion or just add my comment to the one that has been open ? Also, my recent edits on article Giovanni Morassutti are being undone even if I have added better sources to the article. In this case shall I just wait to avoid edit war ? The user is asking me to revert my last edit. Don´t really know what to do --Doratig (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , further changes to the article should be raised on the talk page, but right now I would focus on the AfD. I think your first comment got off on the wrong foot. You want to make a concise case for notability by providing links to 3-4 sources that demonstrate significant, independent coverage in a reliable source. Most of the arguments you've made in the AfD thus far are quite frankly, irrelevant.


 * I've looked through the sources you presented to me back in 2018, and honestly I'm inclined to agree with the delete arguments at this time. I think I may have been too charitable when I first reviewed the article (I was quite new at the time), and do not really see sufficiently significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. signed,Rosguill talk 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They've now been globally locked along with 12+ other accounts for a 3 year long xwiki mass spamming campaign. CUPIDICAE💕  19:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the update. signed,Rosguill talk 19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

T-ban violation
Possibly of interest to you: this is a clear-cut violation of the topic ban you imposed here. (While it occurs in a section nominally about appealing the ban, it cannot realistically be construed as part of any appeal.) --JBL (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I've had my fill of that case, but I'm sure other interested parties can find their way to AE. signed,Rosguill talk 05:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very understandable. --JBL (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The complicated and sophisticated process at AE is beyond my expertise. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , speaking as someone who's read through a few AE cases but never directly participated in one, it shouldn't be that complicated for topic ban violations, you just need to identify the diffs that violate the topic ban. DS-based cases are thornier, but that won't apply here. Granted, once the case is filed you get to deal with a fresh serving of drama, but other than the different the unthreaded discussion layout that's nothing new. signed,Rosguill talk 16:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the topic-ban violation is that clear. I think the evidence of continued violation of AGF and NPA is extremely strong, but I feel like an idiot taking this to a third ANI considering how much drama ensued the previous two times and how little benefit emerged from either attempt. I wish there were a better process for dealing with disruptive editors, because these unending attacks are discouraging. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe at some point they'll get bored and go away. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --JBL (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor
Okay, so here we are with the classical immovable object meets irrestistable force argument. The material was removed after years of existing without sourcing. As per WP policy, uncited material may be removed at any time by any person. And as per WP:BURDEN, once uncited material is removed it should not be put back onto WP without reliable sourcing. And against that is the consensus of an RfD. Based on the first two policies, this information should be removed until sourcing is provided. Based on the RfD it was returned to the mainspace. I know the RfD result was without prejudice to AfD, but WP:BURDEN would suggest simply blanking the page. Which is not acceptable. I feel like the android in that episode of Star Trek (Mudd's Women - although the quandary is not in the WP article, which is criminal, since it is the most brilliant thing about that script). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)
 * , in this case, a Google Scholar search shows a fair amount of promising results, enough that I think it would survive an AfD. It's annoying that the initial editor creating the article didn't do their homework, but as far as NPP is concerned, I think that given that there's very little danger of BLP issues, promo content or political disinformation, tagging with unreferenced, sources exist should be enough and isn't a huge burden on us from a reviewing perspective. signed,Rosguill talk 16:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm thinking of cutting it down to a bare stub, so that there's not so much unreferenced info.  Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Intimidated Newby ( 🤔 uh... sort of)
Rosguill talk :   I'm contacting you because you appear to have extensive  experience and knowledge of Wikipedia. Perhaps this isn't a kosher way of contacting you but I haven't been able to find any other way of doing it. I've intermittently edited a few things over the years but I'm not very experienced or very knowledgeable (Hmm... My first post was back on August 5th, 2014. Didn't realize it was so long ago). I recently decided to become more involved in the editing process but the documentation is somewhat intimidating. I don't think I'd care to become another new page/article Gestapo or a vandalism censor. Other than the two projects I'm contemplating I think I'll stick to being an intermittent drive-by editor.

Like most branches of science and other disciplines there seems to be a whole different frame of logical reference and terminology to absorb. There appears to be a fairly steep learning curve here and will be a bit of a climb. Lots'a clumps of character salad (RfD, AfD, RM, GNG, G6, BLP, CSG, G11, UPE, BLPPROD, Copyvio, 🙁😕😞 {sigh} etc), acronyms, and contractions to wrap my head around. From here the Wikipedia lexicology appears cryptic.

I have a couple of projects in mind but I'm not quite sure how I should proceed. One is an article expansion of the First National Building in OKC (article title; First National Center (Oklahoma City)). It has incorporated in its original design an emergency evacuation slide in the stairwell accessible from every floor. My mother first related this to me as she had worked in the office of an insurance company in the building. This is a unique feature of this building and appears to be the only one in the world. This architectural accessory is not included in the article.

Over the last 50 years I have seen it featured three times as a news item on two different TV stations. My curiosity peaked I decided to do some research to see if other buildings contained this feature. I have found other buildings with slides included in their original design, most of them fairly recent, but NOT as emergency evacuation devices. They're intended as a novelty or for amusement. They typically start at the top floor of a multi-story building and end up on the ground floor with no access by any other in between. I have a number of images (.jpg) of slides incorporated in various buildings.

There have been a few slides used as a replacement for fire escapes attached to the exterior of a building. Relatively recently there has been a Chinese inventor who has designed an emergency evacuation slide configured to be attached to stairwells in existing buildings. It folds up when not in use but has to be deployed when needed.

There are also companies manufacturing inflatable slides capable of retrofit to existing structures up to three or four stories. I think the article on emergency evacuation slides should include these as its focus appears to be mostly on the airline industry (article title; Evacuation slide). Or There should be a separate article on evacuation slides in general with links to the evacuation slide article retitled as Airline Evacuation slides? Or, perhaps, the airline evacuation slide should be incorporated in to a general article on evacuation slides?

I'm attempting to get copies of the video of the First National Building slide from the TV stations featured in their news. I'm also in the process of accumulating data on the First National Building in Oklahoma City such as the architect, the archetects history, his other designs, the construction company, and the characteristics and attributes of the building. The Weary & Alford Company of Chicago is listed as the designer of the building. It's unclear whether there was a single architect involved or if it was a team effort.

I have also accumulated information on the number of companies manufacturing inflatable slides for retrofitting to buildings although they seem to be only applicable to buildings three or four stories tall. There are also companies creating shutes which will work for buildings taller than four stories but is unclear whether they would be functionally valid for use of buildings as tall as the now non-existent Twin Towers or the current World Trade Center Tower. I wonder if you think it is notable to create a new article expanding on buildings containing slides originally included in the design architecture?

Considering the fairly extensive edit on the original article and the possibility of creating a new article I was considering copying the original article and creating the new article in subpages of my user space using them as a scratch pad. Reading through this talk section I discovered there is evidently a draft space for doing such projects. I think I would still like to use subpages of my user space for a scratch pad before submitting them to the draft space for the Dorsal Fin Society to have at them.

Given your experience and your establishment of the school, I thought I would get your input on this. Would it be kosher to create subpages in my user space as scratch pads for working on these articles? Of the vast amount of documentation available what would you recommend I read to begin this project? I'll get into the second project later.

I apologize if this isn't the proper way to contact you. I would appreciate your enlightening me on the proper procedure. Thank you for your time and attention.

Hmm... I should come up with a signiture. The editor appears to be similar to some of the MarkUp languages/editors I've encountered. Quisizyx (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , so, to quickly answer your questions: using subpages of your user space for drafting is totally fine. As for the expansion suggestion for First National Center (Oklahoma City), if you can find reliable secondary sources about the evacuation slide, by all means add information about it to the article. Regarding a new article on evacuation slides, you should look up what academic literature says about evacuation slides and assess whether these RS (i.e. do a Google Scholar search, but skip patent results). If most sources address airplane and building evacuation slides together, they should probably be presented in one article here. If not, separate articles are the way to go. The standard test for establishing whether a subject should get a separate article is WP:GNG.
 * As for documentation, other than the links I added above, for now I would just read our guide to writing your first article. Diving into the weeds more than that shouldn't be necessary for what you're doing. In general, learning the ropes by getting active practice editing is pretty standard for everything but the most complicated processes on Wikipedia, and the community is pretty tolerant of honest mistakes provided that you're willing to heed advice and improve when issues are pointed out to you. As for how to contact me, leaving a message in a new section on my talk page is the correct way, so no worries there, although I do object to being called the new page/article Gestapo, even though I don't think you meant any offense. signed,Rosguill talk 17:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thnx. I was afraid you might give me a pile of documentation to read but what you've recommended seems manageable.  Umm...  RS?  One of the WP terms I'm not familiar with although I have a clue from what follows.  I'm still waiting on some data on slides and I still need to organize some of the newer data I've acquired.  As soon as it reaches critical mass I'll start flailing at it in one of my sub-page scratch pads.  Thanks for the assist.  And no I didn't mean anything by Gestapo.  I'm of Dutch/German descent myself and AFAIK none of my immediate relatives were Nazis.  I go to jerk chains and rattle cages for the data I'm waiting for.  Thanks again for the assist.  I will now peruse the docs that you have recommended.Quisizyx (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , RS is short for reliable sources, you'll see the abbreviation thrown around a lot if you stay here long. signed,Rosguill talk 00:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , RS is short for reliable sources, you'll see the abbreviation thrown around a lot if you stay here long. signed,Rosguill talk 00:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)