User talk:Rosguill/Archive 8

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course


 * Bravo!! Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential copyvio
Hello. First, congratulation for being the Reviewer of the Year. Now for the less funny part: when I separated Monastic Republic of Mount Athos from the Mount Athos article, User:Hughesdarren marked Monastic Republic of Mount Athos as copyvio. I then explained him that all the text from this article came from Wikipedia. He then removed the tag. However, it may be possible that this text, which I took from Mount Athos, is indeed a copyvio. One thing is sure by the look of the Copyvio Detector, one site is copying the other. It may be worth investigating if there is a copyvio, i.e. which site copied which. Moreover, a check up should be performed for Mount Athos, just to be sure everything is ok. Veverve (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , It seems like the top site in the copyvio check explicitly mentions Most of the above extracts in this paragraph are from Wikipaedia (as seen on 30th March 2016)., so I think we're good. signed,Rosguill talk 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry! Veverve (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
PS: thanks for all your awesome page-reviewing!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A simple gesture
😀👍🏻 Atsme Talk 📧 17:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Far, Far Away on Judea's Plain
For Far, Far Away on Judea's Plains, there was a woman in church today who read from the pulpit about it. I found a copy of that at Not sure that document is good as a reference though.Naraht (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * http://wchsutah.org/entertainment/far-far-away5.pdf
 * http://www.stgeorgetemplevisitorscenter.info/tab/faraway.html
 * , unfortunately those two links look essentially like self-published sources, and thus are unlikely to be reliable. signed,Rosguill talk 20:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, some of it appears to be in the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Museum script at http://dupstgeorge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Museum-Tour-Script-Revised-12-2019.pdf, Not sure if that counts as publishing.Naraht (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah that sounds rather borderline to me. I think that it could be usable as a citation for an uncontroversial claim, but I don't think it contributes much to notability unless you can establish that the museum's curators are reliable subject matter experts. signed,Rosguill talk 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think the Hymn still needs to show notability?Naraht (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that the sources provided thus far meet the general notability guideline, although I think it's likely that somewhere out there some probably do exist. signed,Rosguill talk 05:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congrats on making it as an administrator! You've reviewed a lot of my articles and redirects that I tend to make in bulk, for which I am very grateful! – DarkGlow (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Admin congrats

 * Congratulations! By the way, I should be more active on NPPS after the holidays, there's been a lot going on. Again, congrats! Puddleglum  2.0   18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you and no worries, respectively. Happy holidays! signed,Rosguill talk 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Great job on succeeding in RfA! James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The perfect holiday gift!
Congratulations on becoming an admin! Every new sysop needs a mop with which to begin cleaning up. Luckily, your success lines up nicely with the holiday season; thus I gift you your first mop! Treat it well, and it shall treat you well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Two 'crats are better than one
Right, so you've had two bureaucrats stumble over eachother to close your request for adminship. One of them is second-rate and couldn't remove the redundant userrights, so go ahead and get some practice with the interface by removing them: Special:Userrights/Rosguill. Congratulations on your successful request for adminship! –xenotalk 18:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Didn't see this, I ruined the party.  Good news: you can add them back then remove them for double the practice.  Oh, and congrats! ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 18:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you! signed,Rosguill talk 18:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, user:ThisIsaTest is always looking for new userrights to abuse =). –xenotalk 18:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, user:ThisIsaTest is one of the worst accounts we have. You better block them while you're at it. They are also very sorry once you do that and should be unblocked. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 19:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order
Congratulations on the successful passing of your RfA! If you ever have any questions, myself, other admins, and the 'crats are all around to help. Don't hesitate to reach out -- The SandDoctor  Talk 19:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just looked. You might want to update your userpage. Your....umm...userboxes need fixing (alt). Also, feel free to raid my scripts (and their history) - or anyone else's for that matter - for ideas. Plenty of useful admin scripts are around. -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Whitelist
I had been holding off on some work on the redirect whitelist once I knew you'd possibly be a sysop (congrats on that btw, you're going to do great, if I can help let me know). I'm happy to let you be the main driver there - though if you ever need me let me know. As such I leave it to you to think about how we set-up archiving. I would generally think that something like 2 weeks would be the right time - if no sysop acts on it in 2 weeks so be it. Alternatively we could just go to a manual removal like what AfC does. Either way I leave it to you - though feel free to ask questions or bounce ideas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! 2 week-archiving should be fine, although given that we're basically just handing this out to trusted editors (as opposed to having people come request the perm) even manual archiving would likely be fine. signed,Rosguill talk 19:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on your successful RFA. You did it.  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 20:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect whitelist
Thanks for alphabetizing it, but `Randy Kryn` should go before `Shortride`. Thanks for everything that you do for new page patrolling. Happy holidays, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , d'oh, fixed. signed,Rosguill talk 21:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, for the archive, why not follow the perm method of a permalink to the discussion, rather than a copy of it? DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , how would I go about implementing that? I was just copying the method used at AfC. signed,Rosguill talk 22:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I switch the current archive over, and then you can take a look and see which is preferrable? DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I am totally at a loss now that my tried-and-true "check the source code of the page whose design you like" isn't cutting it here. signed,Rosguill talk 22:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so, at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist/Old requests, just add a permalink to the user's discussion in the relevant section, and then remove the discussion. This makes it easier to keep all of the archives together (i.e. we can use the same page for the next year+ and it shouldn't be an issue of being too big) and makes it easy to find a discussion (search for user name, click to see discussion). Thoughts? DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , awesome, looks great. Thank you so much! signed,Rosguill talk 22:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Rosguill: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  18:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Article title consultation
Happy holidays! I'd like your expert opinion on an article title. (I figured the best person to ask is the New Page Reviewer of the Year.) I'm working on Famous literary feuds. I've one more book to consult (Camus v. Satre) and I'll be done. When I move it to mainspace, should it just be Literary feuds? I don't see many articles that use "famous" or "well-known" or "notorious" or "notable" in the title, so I'm hesitating on keeping the Famous literary feuds title. But on the other hand, I wonder whether just Literary feuds implies a greater scope than the article covers, since I limited it to the incidents that have books and papers written about them and are covered by major media outlets or are generally mentioned whenever one of the participants is written about. There's no rush, and I realize you've a ton going on right now, but if you get time after the holidays to consider the question, I would really welcome your view on it. Thanks! Schazjmd  (talk)  18:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , ideally, you could find secondary source content about the concept of a literary feud in general, add that as the first body section(s), title the article Literary feud and then have all of the existing content subordinated to a "Notable feuds" section. Another solution (which requires an unfortunate amount of busy work) would be to create separate articles for each feud (assuming it meets notability guidelines), and then have them all linked to from a List of notable literary feuds.
 * If you're looking for a title that works without totally rewriting the article, I think Literary feud is best. That having been said, if you do go this route, you may want to reorganize similar to my first suggestion, and just leave the fleshing out of the section for general coverage of the concept of a literary feud to another editor. signed,Rosguill talk 18:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a title that works without totally rewriting the article, I think Literary feud is best. That having been said, if you do go this route, you may want to reorganize similar to my first suggestion, and just leave the fleshing out of the section for general coverage of the concept of a literary feud to another editor. signed,Rosguill talk 18:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはRosguillたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 02:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Salute !!!
Congratulations on your successful RFA. 🎉🎉🎉 Celestina007 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for adminship !!  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your wildly successful RfA, welcome to the mop corps! Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Great job, Rosguill! You had an excellent showing, and made it through with no controversy. Congratulations! —  Newslinger  talk   01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on an excellent run for the bit! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the successful RfA. Have never seen such a landslide support for any of the previous RfA's from my time here. Csgir (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn, I missed it. Many apologies - I'm extremely pleased to see your RfA, you're obviously going to be a great addition to the hardpressed corps. Doug Weller  talk 17:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of NorthSideBenji for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NorthSideBenji 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/NorthSideBenji 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , not sure why I got this notification, you should make sure to notify the article's initial editor. signed,Rosguill talk 19:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The notification was automated.  If you don't mind, I'll just ping, the article's creator.  Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, want to advise on handling a dicey Eastern Bloc article?
You have commented on the talk page of the original author of my new pet nightmare, Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya, and have what looks like Cyrillic in your profile. Thus I assume you're a scholar of every single cultural and historical issue in post-Soviet satellite states. Maybe you'll have a sense for the veracity of the claims or lack thereof. Thanks, Jasphetamine (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , that article is quite something. There's so much OR that I'd be tempted to call for WP:TNT. Looking around at related articles Chechen–Russian conflict, First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, and Mass graves in Chechnya. Looking at those articles, I don't see any indication of ethnic cleansing against Russians in Chechnya, although there is mention of civilians of undeclared ethnicity fleeing the Russian military advance for other republics of Russia, and the Mass graves article seems to be mostly about excesses perpetrated by the Russian forces, not the Chechen ones. Battle of Grozny (1994–95) mentions significant civilian casualties, but largely due to Russian air raids, not ethnic cleansing. Samashki massacre mentions Russian-perpetrated war crimes. There's some articles about Chechen insurgents bombing civilian targets in Russia or taking hostages, but not ethnic cleansing per-se.
 * I think that likely the best way to move forward on the Ethnic cleansing article is to aggressively pare back anything that looks like OR: get rid of the long quotes, get rid of SYNTH-y claims, and see what you have left. If you need a spot check on a given source I can take a look on it, although going to RSN may be more appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 20:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re a lifesaver. So as far as paring down, that was my initial reaction and first I started with an approach of “okay I’ll just sort of de-specify who was unsourced forcibly relocated or killed off, as well as remove any unsourced claims of crimes against humanity in general,” then realized that will turn this article into a stub that consisted of “Life wasn’t easy in the general vicinity of Chechnya. Citation needed.”
 * On the other hand not doing that leaves me with the disquieting idea of this article sitting on the internet under the Wikipedia name waiting to be used in bad faith. You mentioned many of the things that particularly worry me, the mass graves really got my attention, as they’re often invoked by propaganda throughout history.
 * I personally would like to see this thing delisted/WP:TNT’d until it can be addressed by subject experts, but I don’t have the clout to deal with the potential Wikidrama that could incite.
 * Jasphetamine (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wouldn't worry too much about drama. I might eat these words later, but in my experience thus far, there aren't too many (any?) well-regarded editors on English Wikipedia who are actively fighting to preserve pro-Russia POV for articles about post-Soviet human rights issues. Meanwhile, as long as you keep your sights on creating a neutral and policy-compliant article (as opposed to setting the goal of "eradicating Russian propaganda" or the like) your changes should be defensible.
 * You might want to bring this issue to the attention of either the neutrality noticeboard or the fringe theory noticeboard (if you want to notify both, pick one location to start the conversation and then post a notice with a link to that conversation on the other noticeboard). Either way, I'll probably take a crack at improving the article later today. signed,Rosguill talk 21:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words and the help. I trust your instincts regarding the communities attitudes about preserving anti-Russian propaganda (that’s a chuckle of a sentence right there) but if you pop in on the talk page thread I started and mention you’re hoping to help out it’d be a nice gesture.
 * Irrational or not, it would assuage my reticence to get involved. I had a bunch of very tenacious editors decide I needed to be SPI’d in a rather informal, aggressive, and public way entirely because I voted in an RfA shortly after registering my account.
 * I decided then I hate the type of drama that happens around this place and plan to avoid it.
 * Jasphetamine (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrational or not, it would assuage my reticence to get involved. I had a bunch of very tenacious editors decide I needed to be SPI’d in a rather informal, aggressive, and public way entirely because I voted in an RfA shortly after registering my account.
 * I decided then I hate the type of drama that happens around this place and plan to avoid it.
 * Jasphetamine (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RFD closures
Hey Rosguill! Just a heads-up: When you close or relist the final listing on a WP:RFD daily subpage, could you please remove the transclusion of that daily subpage from Redirects for discussion? (Unfortunately, RfD is probably one of the few ventures where such an action is not taken by a bot ... ironically, a bot creates and transcludes the pages, but doesn't remove the transclusions when they are no longer needed.) Steel1943  (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Noted, will do. signed,Rosguill talk 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Audrey article
I spent 2 hours searching sources (which only point to the mother's YouTube channel and various other social media and some sources from the story) and you want to delete it?

1. These sources are not entirely bogus, these are the PARENTS social media, like the Doering family has a BUNCH of personal information spread-ed on the accounts and it's not really hard to find the information on the news articles either. So these aren't fake, these are real accounts, and hell, even the news that this footage and coverage are all from Jennifer Doering. So yes, the sources are true. 2. The birth date is true because the document was shown on the news footage and again, from Jennifer's family household.

Junkrak (talk) 02:28:35pm —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who the Facebook accounts belong to, they are not secondary sources and thus do not contribute to the subject's notability. While they can be used to support trivial details in the article (although even that is discouraged), they do not contribute toward establishing that we should include the article in Wikipedia. I would in particular suggest that you read through WP:BLP1E, the policy governing articles about people who are famous for a one-time event. Additionally, I would suggest that you make any arguments about keeping the article at the deletion discussion, so that other editors can see them. signed,Rosguill talk 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you happy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Sisters_Reunite Junkrak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I understand the point that you're trying to make here. But at a glance, that article is unlikely to meet WP:NEVENT. signed,Rosguill talk 21:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some searching and found out there's a act in there's a act in Utah for identical twins. Does this count? DOES IT EVEN FUCKING COUNT? Sorry, I got pissed inside for a second. https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/ Junkrak (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry but I do not understand your argument here. If you are interested in arguing further, I would suggest that you take it to the deletion discussion page, and I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines so that you can actually make valid arguments. signed,Rosguill talk 21:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Request
Hi rosguill hope you are enjoying holidays, can i request you to review a page its notable and passing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , which page are you asking about? signed,Rosguill talk 20:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This page was created by few person in last three years at that time no notable links were found so admin protected it, i asked two wikipedia admin about this issue one told me please wait if draft accepted protection will be remove , second admin fix the page and edit grammar mistakes. i hope you will check and review it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi

Thanks

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I actually don't do much work at AfC. I would note that it usually takes a few months for an article to be reviewed, and you only submitted it a few days ago. I also see that a few AfC reviewers have already edited it, so people have their eyes on the article. I'm going to decline reviewing this article right now, please be patient. signed,Rosguill talk 07:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You were right
I was reading your comment, and I was pretty confused at first. After all, I don't review permissions, and I basically was under the assumption that:


 * "For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). After two weeks, if a request does not have the individual consensus of 3 reviewers the request will be automatically closed."

This was how the process was. Requests would stay up for 2 weeks, even if it consisted purely of oppose votes. Your comment got me thinking, "am I just not interpreting the procedures correctly?" So I went back and re-read, confident in my understanding. Until...


 * "Alternatively an administrator may close a request as successful or unsuccessful at any time as part of standard individual administrative discretion for the granting of user rights."

Thank you for the information! I figured that my drawn-out revelation wouldn't be appropriate for including in the nomination, but here's this at least. Utopes (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)



Utopes has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * , we are all continuously learning on this wonderful place called Wikipedia. Honestly, since having gotten admin rights earlier this week Wikipedia has become far more terrifying again because suddenly I have a new toolbox that I barely know how to use. It's like my first month of NPP all over again! signed,Rosguill talk 19:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just didn't fully read the instructions and used my incomplete knowledge to say that you were circumventing the system. If everything is resolved, then we're good. (And you don't always need to be using your admin actions if that was worrying you. You don't need to cut celery with a chainsaw, even if you have it lying in your garage). Utopes (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame
Hi, I just saw that you reviewed the list I created List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame. Thanks for that.

However, it shows that it is a featured list, which it is not supposed to be.

Can you please contact the right people, and tell them to remove the symbol from it? Thanks. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed, thanks. Surge_Elec (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , what was the reason behind that bug? I saw it and remember being puzzled by it, but when I checked the talk page it seemed to have the correct (non-featured) label, so I kinda just shrugged and moved on. signed,Rosguill talk 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The symbol was removed from the page. Surge_Elec (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated greetings
I took a bit of time off there while visiting relatives over Christmas - so, I'm too late you congratulate you on your RfA, and too late to wish you a merry Christmas... but I'm just in time to wish you a cheerful Hogmanay, and best wishes for the new year! Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A useful admin's accessory for you!
. Wear it well, Narky Blert (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your Tag: PageTriage in Abigail Varela
Dear Rosguill, thank you for your concerns about "copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" in page Abigail Varela. May I ask -in all candor- why was it that despite observing the need to revise these aspects you did not go ahead to make the changes that you perceived necessary? Was it due to lack of time or to another motive? Your kind feedback on this question will be appreciated.Neuralia (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , lack of time primarily: if I come across an article in the new pages queue with copyediting issues that would take more than a few seconds to correct, I'm generally going to tag it and move on. signed,Rosguill talk 00:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rosguill, would you be kind enough to spend the necessary seconds? Your constructive spirit will be appreciated. I found one spelling mistake with the word aluminum, which is taken care of. May I note the article is written in consistent Historical present style that perhaps you are not familiar with?Thank you Neuralia (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Historical present style is not a style that is encouraged in Wikipedia's manual of style. Moreover, the article's tone is quasi-promotional due to its use of rather flowery prose: it would be appropriate for an art catalog, but not so much for Wikipedia. There's also quite a few grammatical errors.
 * I'm going to respectfully decline making the corrections myself, as I avoid making significant copyediting improvements to articles that have issues with promotional tone because this can allow paid promotional editors to game the review system. signed,Rosguill talk 02:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to respectfully decline making the corrections myself, as I avoid making significant copyediting improvements to articles that have issues with promotional tone because this can allow paid promotional editors to game the review system. signed,Rosguill talk 02:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor RfD comment
In, you mention to about being bold and making the redirect themselves. Chinazi is fully protected so RfD is quite necessary! Pedantism over... anyways have a nice day :) — MarkH21talk 04:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , my bad, I should have checked more carefully. Thanks for the note. signed,Rosguill talk 05:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI
I can't reply to you directly in the ANI discussion because I don't have an account, but I'd like to respond to something you said there. You said, "If this was behavior that was being repeated over and over again despite it having been contested brought to that editors attention, then ANI would be appropriate."

Could you please look at the discussion in Onetwothreeip's user talk over the past four or five months, particularly here, here, here, and here? I'm one of about a dozen users who have been struggling to deal with this pattern of behavior, which seems to have escalated recently. Now that it's finally been brought to a noticeboard, I'd like to make sure it receives the proper attention there. 2600:1004:B16B:F542:458D:473F:2506:D12A (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing these additional cases to my attention. While a few of the diffs don't seem directly relevant to this case, the examples of rash article splitting are relevant and deserve further consideration. I'll make further comments at ANI shortly. signed,Rosguill talk 02:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although you've only mentioned two of the older cases. I think his split of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War was the most severe case, as it created several hundred reference errors, which was a mistake he'd been warned about less than a day earlier on the same article. (See the article's revision history, as well as this discussion on its talk page.)


 * Also, should the other editors who were involved in these earlier issues be notified of the ANI discussion? 2600:1004:B16B:F542:458D:473F:2506:D12A (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added mention of the American-led intervention case. I'm honestly not sure what our best practices regarding notifying other editors would be. There is an obligation to notify editors who are being discussed, but that doesn't extend to other editors peripherally involved in the issue. Given the number of editors involved across these discussions, I'm a bit concerned that notifying all of them will turn the discussion into a trainwreck, and thus I'm thinking that we might get a clearer consensus for or against a cban if only more impartial editors weigh in. signed,Rosguill talk 03:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Rosguill, this IP editor appears to be the one which has been in some dispute with me on the Race and intelligence article, where they have been attempting to retain sources that make fringe claims about certain races having greater inherent intelligence than others. I think what has now happened is a severe overreaction to situations that arose from article splits which have been resolved relatively easily.
 * The IP editor for example raises that there were "several hundred reference errors", but this was only because an article used list defined references. I copied the references over into the split article, but many of those references weren't used in the split article. This resulted in errors appearing where references defined in the references section didn't actually appear in the article, and these were removed a fairly short time after the split was made. Of the references that actually did appear in the article, and for what the content actually relied on, there were no errors. It was purely redundant references that were the issue.
 * I have explained the other two instances, both fairly benign, at the noticeboard. Please feel free to ask me any further questions regarding these splits. The vast majority of splits I've made were completely uncontroversial, and I have always been willing to resolve the issues on talk pages whenever the splits that I have made are contested. I kindly ask that you withdraw your proposal. Many thanks, Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor who opened the complaint at ANI is now WP:CANVASSING other editors, including editors who have nothing to do with articles I have split. This shouldn't be acceptable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , insofar as the editors that SharabSalam has pinged have actually recently been involved in editing disputes where you split an article, it is actually pertinent to the discussion. However, if editor's are canvassed from unrelated, older disputes that you've been involved with, then it crosses the line. signed,Rosguill talk 07:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the editors are from the latter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , all of them are from the related discussions that the IP linked about the splits. I don't know anyone of them and this is the first time I see them.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably untrue. Of the five editors you listed, AndewNguyen is from Race and intelligence, JalenFolf is from Differential K theory, and BullRangifer is from Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. These are not articles I have sought to split, and the issues do not relate to those articles being split. Of the two editors you listed who are from articles that I have sought to split, one of them raised their concerns in September and were resolved in September. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , nope.They are all from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Page_size --SharabSalam (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is blatantly untrue. Those editors are only mentioned in that talk page by Corker1, who was copying and pasting those comments on other talk pages that I was participating in, and were never participants on discussion about that article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rosguill, I've had an editor, Corker1, who has now commented at the ANI post, who was copying and pasting comments to talk pages that I was participating in, denigrating me and trying to mobilise editors against me. Wouldn't this behaviour justify a WP:BOOMERANG? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , at this point these types of concerns should be raised in the ANI discussion, not on my talk page, not the least because at this point closing the discussion or implementing sanctions is not solely in my hands. signed,Rosguill talk 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

NPP school
Do you have time to take on a student? I am relatively new to NPP and would appreciate a tour. I feel like I am not doing it in the most effective way or giving it the due diligence it deserves. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I likely can, yes. What kind of instruction were you hoping to receive, a structured lesson plan or just some coaching when you come across difficult or unfamiliar cases? signed,Rosguill talk 17:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Structured, if you would please. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , ok, I'll set things up for you sometime later today. In the meantime, here are some helpful scripts and gadgets for NPP work that you should install if you haven't already:
 * If you haven't installed it yet, you should definitely set up WP:TWINKLE. If you already have Twinkle installed, please go to Twinkle/Preferences and enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" and " Keep a log in userspace of all PROD nominations". This will allow you, me, and other editors to view your track record with these two deletion protocols (AfDs can be checked here).
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js, which adds a link to the new page queue next to the Sandbox and Preferences links at the top of your UI
 * User:Primefac/revdel.js, which adds an interface for requesting copyright revision deletions in the More tab next to page history
 * User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, a script which streamlines the process of moving an article to draft space (use sparingly!)
 * User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title
 * User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles
 * User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists signed,Rosguill talk 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) signed,Rosguill talk 17:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , one additional question, what areas of NPP in particular do you think you need assistance with? The structured course as a whole includes basic introductions to GNG and other notability guidelines, but we could skip toward more difficult, practical cases if you think you don't need the full introduction. signed,Rosguill talk 18:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can skip the basics. Assume I am pretty knowledgeable in our policies and guidelines. I want to work more on CSD criteria, tagging, and cleanup. Share your process, filter settings, as well as what to look for and what to ignore for now. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js, which automatically searches for a page's prior deletions and AfD discussions. If it finds anything, it will add a tiny link next to the article's title
 * User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper.js, adds a nice UI for writing short descriptions for articles
 * User:Enterprisey/delsort.js, lets you automatically add AfD discussions to relevant sorting lists signed,Rosguill talk 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) signed,Rosguill talk 17:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , one additional question, what areas of NPP in particular do you think you need assistance with? The structured course as a whole includes basic introductions to GNG and other notability guidelines, but we could skip toward more difficult, practical cases if you think you don't need the full introduction. signed,Rosguill talk 18:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can skip the basics. Assume I am pretty knowledgeable in our policies and guidelines. I want to work more on CSD criteria, tagging, and cleanup. Share your process, filter settings, as well as what to look for and what to ignore for now. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , one additional question, what areas of NPP in particular do you think you need assistance with? The structured course as a whole includes basic introductions to GNG and other notability guidelines, but we could skip toward more difficult, practical cases if you think you don't need the full introduction. signed,Rosguill talk 18:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can skip the basics. Assume I am pretty knowledgeable in our policies and guidelines. I want to work more on CSD criteria, tagging, and cleanup. Share your process, filter settings, as well as what to look for and what to ignore for now. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Rosguill , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Not enough articles?
Hey Rosguill! I wanted to get back to you about Shreevatsa's declination. While I am not worried about the outcome in either direction, I'm confused about your explanation. My understanding is that whenever a user with autopatrolled creates an article, the "patrolled" value is set to true, when it is set to false for all other users. So to that point, because the user is trustworthy on the basis of their history of article creation, why would it be declined on the logic that "not enough articles created recently". I can't ignore that the article creation has stagnated for the user, but because they returned from their hiatus to create more redirects, there is a possibility that more could be created in the future. That is why I nominated that user for the permission; they were trustworthy in the past, and if they decide to create any more articles, I can say with confidence that they will be well written. Autopatrolled isn't removed from inactive users either, and I'm sure that there are x number of users with the permission who won't author another article again but keep the permission because of the chance that they do return. Anyway, I'm not going to challenge the decision in the WP:PERM threads because you are correct in the fact that this user probably won't create many more articles or redirects here, so there's no harm in NOT granting the right either. Utopes (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're right that there isn't harm in granting the right to a user who doesn't make many new articles. But the goal of the autopatrol permission is to reduce Wikipedia's backlogs. At the rate that they're crating content, the amount of work that it would take me or another admin to review enough of their articles to feel confident in conferring the right would take years to pay off. Time would be better spent reviewing the case of a more prolific editor, or not at PERM and instead in actually reviewing articles. signed,Rosguill talk 06:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mawhiba moved to draftspace
Hi Rosguill, I'd like to know why has Mawhiba article been moved to draft and why do you think that I have a conflict of interest. I have already checked about its neutrality and added the required citations. So, please can you tell me more about this?

I disclose that I have not been paid or encouraged or asked to write an article about Mawhiba.

--Mustafa Al-Elq (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the article is formatted like an advert, particularly with the Vision section that looks like it was pulled directly from the organization's website. It's generally encouraged for editors who are new on English Wikipedia to submit articles through the AfC process, especially in areas such as articles about nonprofits and companies where we get a lot of promotional submissions. signed,Rosguill talk 07:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , can you give me some concrete checklist that I can fix the article through it? Like, what are your instructions to make the article does not seem like an advertisement?--Mustafa Al-Elq (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Make sure that the article's sourcing meets WP:ORGCRITE, i.e. coverage of more than a sentence or two from 3+ reliable sources that are independent of the subject
 * Write the article in prose (as opposed to bullet points, which should be used sparingly), focusing on the history of the organization, which can include recent events but should focus on past achievements rather than ongoing programs. Similarly, partnerships with other organizations are rarely worth mentioning unless they are direct subsidiaries of each other or mentioned at great length in reliable sources. Accreditation details are generally not listed, although it may be appropriate to link to an actual accreditation database entry in an external links section at the bottom of the article
 * Any content about the organization's intentions, goals or values which is sourced to the organization itself should be attributed to that organization, and should be edited to be more neutral. Note that even when presented neutrally, such information may not be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. signed,Rosguill talk 07:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Write the article in prose (as opposed to bullet points, which should be used sparingly), focusing on the history of the organization, which can include recent events but should focus on past achievements rather than ongoing programs. Similarly, partnerships with other organizations are rarely worth mentioning unless they are direct subsidiaries of each other or mentioned at great length in reliable sources. Accreditation details are generally not listed, although it may be appropriate to link to an actual accreditation database entry in an external links section at the bottom of the article
 * Any content about the organization's intentions, goals or values which is sourced to the organization itself should be attributed to that organization, and should be edited to be more neutral. Note that even when presented neutrally, such information may not be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. signed,Rosguill talk 07:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tibet House USA
I saw mention of THUS on Teahouse. Out of curiosity I visited the page. I noted your reason for moving the article to draft. I have reviewed the draft and can find nothing in it that violates WP standards. The government of China might not like the article as it is an indirect critique, but the lede and body are factual representations of the mission statement. Is there something else that I missed. ThanksOldperson (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , see my response on that editor's talk page. I felt that there was enough non-neutral phrasing that the article should receive some neutrality copyediting before being accepted. signed,Rosguill talk 17:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rosguill!


Happy New Year! Rosguill, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

- Nahal</b> (T) 22:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy Holidays text.png
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#1D4E89; background-color:#0f4c81; border-width:2px; text-align:left; color:white; padding:3px; max-width:750px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

Rosguill, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

pt → en help needed
Hi, Rosguill,

Thanks for raising that issue at ENB. I noticed your user boxes, and wondered if you might be interested in lending a hand with some translations from pt-BR. We currently have a need with two draft articles: Draft:Operation Car Wash investigations and Draft:Operation Car Wash investigation phases. The former is about 75% done, and the latter probably about 20%. It "chunkifies" very nicely, and you could do isolated paragraphs without having to worry too much about what's going on in the rest of the article.

There's another possible project you might like: I've been building a glossary of terms as an aide to pt-BR → en translation, to help make translation of (Brazilian) Portuguese articles into English more consistent and accurate, not to mention faster and easier. Any assistance to the glossary could be leveraged across many articles, so that might be a more important project, than just translating the two articles. You can find the glossary here: Draft:OCW-G. I think it has hit critical mass and is close to being ready for release; I expect to place it as a subpage of WP:BRAZIL. If you want to contribute, feel free. If you have any suggestions or comments, please raise them on the Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll take a look at this later tonight, but I should be able to pitch in some. signed,Rosguill talk 01:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Rosguill, thanks for the help at Phase 10 of the OCW phases draft. You hit a tough translation situation with precatório; it took me a while to research and fully understand it, but I do, now. It required a new entry to the glossary, and an explanatory note added to your translation, because there's no way a simple literal translation or a short phrase would suffice. If you hit a translation problem, please add it directly to the body text, as the edit summary eventually gets lost in the scrolling. The clarify template is a good way to signal a translation issue or uncertainty in-line. Here's an example. If you code this:"On April 8, 2015, the Federal Justice Court of Paraná confiscated 163.5 million reals from Queiroz Galvão's company, a figure corresponding to the state of Alagoas."it will render in-line, like this:"On April 8, 2015, the Federal Justice Court of Paraná confiscated 163.5 million reals from Quieroz Galvão's company, a figure corresponding to the state of Alagoas."
 * The  param becomes a mouse-over tooltip (but cannot handle links) and the optional   param can handle discussion links, if needed.
 * As it happens, it was not an accurate translation, and I've updated it; although I had no idea if it was or wasn't when I started. After some research, I found out the actual meaning, added it to the glossary, and adjusted the text in Phase 10. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)