User talk:Rosguill/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Vinca massacre

Hi Rosguill, could you just elaborate a little, either here or on the article's talk page, what specifically you would like better sourced in the article and I will try to address your concerns, if I can. Thanks, Turismond (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Turismond: thanks for following up on this. Currently the article relies overwhelmingly on a single source, the Atlas of Nazi and Fascist Massacres in Italy. The article could thus be improved by providing citations to other publications as well. I wouldn't say that it is urgent, nor is the article or any of its content at risk for deletion, but it is a clear area of possible improvements by you or other editors. signed, Rosguill talk 23:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick feed back. I will look into fixing it soon. Turismond (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I have done some ref improvements to the article and removed the maintenance template. If you think it is still insufficient feel free to revert. Turismond (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nabil Gabol

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nabil Gabol. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Venture Cafe COI

Hi! I saw your COI. I added clarification on my connection to Venture Cafe and on your original research comment on Talk:Venture Café. Jon Phillips (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jon Phillips: Thanks for disclosing your degree of affiliation with Venture Café. As far as the original research tag goes, citations are more of an art than a science, but we should strive to have a citation for every claim (and more for controversial or extraordinary claims), and entire paragraphs without citations are particularly troublesome. signed, Rosguill talk 06:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Maravillas Lamberto

Hi Rosguill, I saw you tagged the article, I would call it overtagging really. I have seen much worse articles than this without tags. However, some of the are fine, like relying on one source. Original research... Why do you get that conclusion, because there are unreferenced sentences? Tone, etc. I am lost, what it is about? Iñaki LL (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: looking at it now I agree that some of the tags were unnecessary. I was concerned about the somewhat bold claims in the second paragraph of the lead, which are not sourced and are phrased in a not particularly neutral tone, but I see now that they are directly supported by the cited source. signed, Rosguill talk 06:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Trovagene

Seems a bit hasty to nominate it for deletion - particularly given that it hasn't had the opportunity to be indexed yet (and the bio-medical community doesn't exactly 'search' for the companies that make up its community). There are scores of articles establishing it as an industry stalwart, but these aren't the most communicative people. Examples:. [1] [2] [3] [4] Abattoir666 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abattoir666: Sorry for any offense, I'm a new pages patroller, so deleting articles that are undersourced before they are indexed is part of my job description. That aside, the sources that you provided in this message appear to demonstrate notability, much more so than anything currently cited in the article, so feel free to incorporate those sources into the article and remove the PROD tag. signed, Rosguill talk 04:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That's quite alright, thanks for the heads up - and thanks for all you do. Abattoir666 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Aunty Lee's Delights

Hi. You previously reviewed Aunty Lee's Delights and tagged it as needing copy edit. I've done some copy editing on the article since. Would you mind having a look to see if it is of good enough standard for the tag to be removed? Thanks in advance. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: I made some additional minor edits and removed the copyedit tag, as the article is in pretty good shape. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Geoffrey Owens

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Geoffrey Owens. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing copyvios

Hey Rosguill! I saw that you had PRODded RISE Analysis. After doing a copyvio search, I found out that much of the article was a copyright violation of http://riseanalysis.com/about-rise/what-is-rise/, see here. In the future, make sure to check for copyvios before marking an article as reviewed, even if you do end up PRODding it for a different reason. If you do see that it contains a copyvio, remove the infringing text completely and tag the article with {{copyvio-revdel}}, or if the whole article is a copyvio, you can G12 it. Thanks!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 19:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eugene Gu

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eugene Gu. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Legobot: someone stop this bot, it's trying to get me to vote twice. signed, Rosguill talk 04:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MG Metro 6R4 speedy deletion?

Hi, could you explain your reasons for the speedy deletion of the MG Metro 6R4 page? This rally car is a completely different type of vehicle from the Austin Metro, and I believe deserves its own page. Thanks. Hotlorp (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hotlorp: The issue isn't whether or not MG Metro 6R4 deserves an article (I actually would support the creation of the article). However, the article as written had significant copyright violations, so it had to have some of its revisions deleted. I originally labeled it for speedy deletion due to copyright violations, but then retracted that decision, as it was better to simply WP:REVDEL the edits that were infringing copyright and revert to the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks for the reply. Good to hear you would support a new article. That’s odd about the copyright violations, since I simply copied and pasted the text from the section in the Austin Metro article, with some minor changes at the beginning. If there were copyright violations, they remain in that original article! May I ask how you detemined there were infringements? Hotlorp (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hotlorp: I used Earwig's Copyvio Tool, I suspect that the content at Austin Metro is copyvio as well, although given the length of the article, it's possible that it just went unnoticed. IIRC, the entirety of the MG Metro 6R4 article wasn't copyvio, but enough of it was such that the article would have been incomprehensible if I'd removed the offending parts. I'll check again once the tool comes back online. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hotlorp: I have to apologize! I found the websites that were hosting the content that triggered the copyvio on the MG Metro 6R4 page–while their content was posted before MG Metro 6R4 was created, it was posted after the content was added to the Austin Metro article, and thus was likely taken from there originally. You should be able to recreate the page with much the same content, just leave a note on the Talk page explaining what happened. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks for looking into this. Sounds like this must be quite a common reason for incorrect deletions :) I’ll recreate it and add the Talk note as you suggest. Hotlorp (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sujit Wongthes

Hello! You tagged Sujit Wongthes with a citation needed tag for his awards. I have added a source from the Thai Ministry of Culture validating both of them. Before I remove the top notice on the page, I wanted to make sure that was the only citation you were requesting. I think everything else already links back to one of the provided sources. Thanks! PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@PohranicniStraze: Yeah it looks good, although the article could also be improved by providing more citations to articles (or other sources) that are specifically about Wongthes, as opposed to covering him while being primarily about another topic. Up to you whether you want to leave the tag up to encourage other editors to do that though. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Someday Cowboy

Hi Rosguill, thanks for reviewing the article I wrote about the new Baby Jey album Someday Cowboy. I moved the article to draft space for now. I removed the citations that were from smaller music blogs, and I added four citations from The Edmonton Journal, which is a major Canadian daily newspaper, as well as Vue Weekly, BeatRoute Magazine and a reference to the Canadian college radio chart. In addition, I kept the citations for Earmilk and Indie88 as those are both larger music blogs. I haven't done extensive searches for sources, but with the newspapers and magazines now included in the reflist, and the additional reference to college radio, do you think it meets notability requirements? If not, I can try search for more sources. Thanks! Tracklan2 (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


@Tracklan2: Thanks for putting in the effort to improve the article. Unfortunately I don't think the current sourcing is good enough. Wikipedia's notability guideline requires in-depth coverage at multiple independent reliable sources. Vue Weekly and BeatRoute Magazine don't look like reliable sources to me (very small circulation, no mention of an editorial board on their websites). The Edmonton Journal would be a good place to be published, except that the coverage currently cited is WP:ROUTINE, merely announcing a concert (and clearly promotional, which is not independent). The college radio chart would be a reliable, independent source for supporting a claim, but it's not in depth, so that doesn't help either.

You're more than welcome to keep working at it, but I will say that given how much you've looked for sources, it's unlikely that you're going to suddenly find something reliable. For topics like indie music, if reliable sources exist they'll turn up quickly in google searches. signed, Rosguill talk 02:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Addressing KeyForge Issues

Thanks for taking a look at the KeyForge article. I've had a crack at removing the long quotes in the "Development" section, and am now thinking about addressing the verifiability issue. The only source I can think to mention for the "Gameplay" section is the KeyForge rulebook, or perhaps a Fantasy Flight article, but I wanted to check whether you thought they would be adequate. I've already referenced the rulebook, but relatedly I'm not sure if my formatting was quite right. If you get the chance to see what you think, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Professionalecho (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Professionalecho: Thanks for looking into this. The rulebook and/or Fantasy Flight article should be fine for the Gameplay section–while they wouldn't be reliable for establishing notability (as they are not independent), that's not an issue as notability has already been established by the IGN and Polygon reviews, and there isn't really a reason for an affiliated source to lie about the game's gameplay. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Vasudevacharya

Hi Rosguill, Don't understand why Vasudevacharya is now a draft as there was a citation for each statement after editing. Also there are three links to Vasudevacharya from other Wikipedia articles. I thought this would be a suitable article for Wikipedia as Vasudevacharya is a world authority on the subject of Advaita Vedanta. I don't understand the bureaucracy of Wikipedi. Tried my best with this one as I do know about Advaita Vedanta and thought this would be a good article. Ultimately not worth all the time and research for the article and the Wikipedia jargon, I'm over it and over Wikipedia. Go ahead and delete the article. Renlock (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Renlock: The issue for the article isn't that any individual claim is unsupported, but rather that the collection of sources attached to the article (as well as my own searches online) doesn't include enough in-depth coverage at independent, reliable sources (as when I moved it to draft it had one article that met these criteria) to meet the general notability guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I'd encourage you to keep looking–if you can find an in-depth article in The Times of India or another major newspaper, that would be sufficient to meet the guideline, (as you've already provided one such citation to The Hindu), but you're under no obligation to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 16:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note the 1RR restriction.Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

NewsPim is a Korean newspaper.

You moved NewsPim to Draft:NewsPim because it doesn't have enough references. But NewsPim is a Korean newspaper so it doesn't have enough English references.


It has three English references, Bloomberg, NewsBeezer and Bitcoin.com.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=208512539

https://newsbeezer.com/koreaeng/newspim-trump-tariffs-not-trade-aimed-at-north-korea/

https://news.bitcoin.com/korean-government-regulatory-plans-crypto-exchange-hacks/


And it has a Korean Wikipedia page.

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/뉴스핌

--Berryball (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Berryball: Feel free to provide Korean-language sources. However, the sources currently on the Korean wiki page are not helpful. One is the same Bloomberg page you already provided, and which is a company profile that doesn't demonstrate in-depth coverage at a secondary source. The other is a link to NewsPim itself, which is not independent of the subject. Moreover, the mere existence of a Korean wikipedia page itself does nothing to demonstrate notability, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In order to demonstrate notability, please provide either in-depth coverage in an independent, reliable source, or provide citations to reliable, independent sources demonstrating that NewsPim is a major and/or influential publication. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Is Bitcoin.com also not enough?

https://news.bitcoin.com/korean-government-regulatory-plans-crypto-exchange-hacks/

It cited Newspim as a news source.


"Ministry of Environment" of South Korean government cited Newspim (Ko: 뉴스핌).

http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/board/read.do;jsessionid=gSNcoG1AS3oQrDa18LEe135JmNCxu4TuKrNyzyZZEk1Sa6lGMOKfBdpghGLMC3uH.meweb2vhost_servlet_engine1?pagerOffset=0&maxPageItems=10&maxIndexPages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=286&orgCd=&boardId=862260&boardMasterId=1&boardCategoryId=40&decorator=


South Korean government's "Ministry of Economy and Finance" also cited Newspim.

http://www.moef.go.kr/nw/nes/detailNesDtaView.do?searchBbsId=MOSFBBS_000000000029&menuNo=4010200&searchNttId=MOSF_000000000018828


--Berryball (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Berryball: I would not consider a mention of re-reporting at bitcoin.com to be enough. For one, bitcoin.com doesn't appear to be a reliable source, as they don't say anything about their editorial practices on their website, and have a pretty clear conflict of interest with the well-being of Bitcoin (previous discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard support this conclusion). Additionally, even if Bitcoin.com were a reliable source, merely re-reporting NewsPim's coverage doesn't satisfy wikipedia's general notability guideline. If you want to try to sidestep the guideline which specifies that there must be in-depth coverage, I would expect you to provide multiple examples of reliable sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Le Monde, Al Jazeera, academic journals specializing in Asia or Korea, etc.) re-reporting NewsPim, or otherwise identifying it as a major publication with wide readership in South Korea. The citation to the Ministry of Environment is a step in the right direction. Find a few more citations of that quality or better and I'd consider notability met. I don't see anything in the Ministry of Economy and Finance source mentioning NewsPim, but that could have been a translator error. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)19:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Are two government ministries, "Ministry of Environment" and "Ministry of Economy and Finance", also not enough?


You can find the word "뉴스핌" in the Ministry of Economy and Finance web page.

--Berryball (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Berryball: At this point I'm uncertain. In the strictest sense, notability still hasn't been demonstrated, as I haven't seen any in-depth coverage about NewsPim. However, if multiple government agencies are citing it, that's an indication that it is treated as a serious news source by the South Korean government, and likely also by at least part of the South Korean population. As someone who does not speak Korean and isn't particularly familiar with the South Korean media and political landscape, I'd have to say that I don't feel qualified to judge whether the provided sources sufficiently establish that NewsPim is notable. Feel free to re-submit the article for review, I won't vote against it, but I'd like another new page reviewer to take a look at it. Alternatively, if you can find more reliable sources re-reporting NewsPim (preferably not affiliated with the government, as you have already demonstrated that they take NewsPim reports seriously–more government agencies don't really demonstrate anything on top of what you already have), or in-depth coverage at an independent reliable source, I would be happy to approve the article myself. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


NewsPim is one of news sources of Factiva that is a business information and research tool owned by Dow Jones & Company.

https://archive.is/20He4

https://archive.is/aB3oh

pdf file: https://dow-jones-2097.docs.contently.com/print/106981?raw_file=true


The pdf file includes 18 Korean newspapers and NewsPim is one of them.

--Berryball (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


@Berryball: Ok, that looks good enough to me. Thanks for all the work you've put into this. signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Anyway, I found one more. ;)

Koscom and Newspim signed a strategic alliance.

http://www.ddaily.co.kr/news/article.html?no=9215

--Berryball (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles K. Kao

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles K. Kao. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Skip (company)

Thank you for reviewing the Skip (company) article. I noticed that you added a tag stating that the lead section was too long. I've since removed the tag, as I don't know how three sentences would be considered a long lead section. Cheers, Daylen (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Daylen: I must have misclicked, sorry about thatsigned, Rosguill talk 05:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Article for Deletion (AFD), Jay Pizzle

Hi Rosgui, Thanks for taking the time to go through my article on Jay Pizzle. The article was initially created in 2017 and was speedy deleted. The author that created it then, didn't include the reliable source to prove the artist notability I guess he didn't do enough research on his subject. It was nominated for speedy deletion after I created it this year because I didn't follow the Wikipedia guidelines for creating an article that was previously deleted which i fixed. So thanks once more for your comments. You query his notability, please see guidelines for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide for further guidance. if you still have concerns please feel free to comment below or on the article talk page, and i will respond in time. Meanwhile Nice, I must recommend you for a good job so far. Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability tag Sparrows

Hi Rosguill,

Just wanted to reach out and touch base regarding your tag for notability on the new Sparrows_(band) page. I took a second look at the article in question and can't seem to find any indication of notability issues (see WP:BAND). The group is signed to a large international Canadian based label - New Damage Records (Dine Alone Records) (Rule 5) and has been the subject of multiple (non-trivial) articles from more than a few major music publications (Rule 1) including Alternative Press and Exclaim! and a ton of smaller (not listed as they're not strong sources) blogs and 'zines. In addition the group has been touring internationally (Rule 4) quite regularly (I was unable to find a single year a tour didn't occur) and they have acted as direct support for a number of larger national and international tours (currently sourcing for ar.

Keeping in mind citations and sources will grow as I continue adding to the article I strongly believe this group has more than demonstrated notability and have definitely made a splash in the Canadian music market - which of course aims to help in improving the Canadian music categories (part of my particular work on Wikipedia). That said unless any glaring issues should arise that would warrant leaving the status in place I'd appreciate a re-review of the tag.

Cheers, Tokyoyo (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


@Tokyoyo: Thanks for following up on this. I wasn't sure about Alternative Press and Exclaim! at the time that I put the tag, but I see now that they count as RS. I've gone ahead and removed the tag. signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability tag Taylor Goldsmith

Hi Rosguill,

I wanted to ask for clarification about the notability tag you added to the new Taylor Goldsmith page. Are your doubts about the reliability or independence of the sources, or is it not clear how the subject passes criterion 6 of the notability guidelines for musicians ("is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.")? Goldsmith has been a prominent member of four bands, each of which has been deemed notable enough to have a page of its own.

I have no doubt that citations and sources will multiply as I continue working on the article, and if that is your main concern, I'd be happy to add more (or more reliable) sources. That said, if your concern was about notability generally, I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider the tag.

Thanks, Swper (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Swper: Thanks for following up on this. Essentially, it was a combination of the two, by which I mean that the citations seemed borderline for justifying that the subject clears criterion 6. Given that you're clearly putting in good effort into the article, I'll swap the notability for refimprove. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Bandito Tour

Hi! I saw you redirected my page, Bandito Tour. I get what why redirected it, but its only five days until the tour begins and there's a relevant amount of build up. After all, other tours have had articles created before the tour begins, such as the Voicenotes Tour, Memories Do Not Open Tour and Synthesis Live. Just take a look at their history. Anyway, just wanted to hear from you about this. Bye MikeØwen Let's have a nice cup of tea and a friendly chat 11:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@MikeOwen: My reasoning for redirecting the article was based on the guideline for concert tours, WP:NTOUR, which states that Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.. Looking at the citations provided in the revision of Bandito Tour that I redirected, the sources were either routine coverage announcing the tour, promotional content promoting the tour, or NME's coverage of a concert that occurred before the tour's formal start (coverage like the NME article would be solid for establishing the notability of the tour, if it's about a concert that actually occurred as part of the tour). As far as the other articles you mentioned go, I try not to second-guess other new page reviewers, but I suspect that they likely did not meet NTOUR until after the tour started (or another possibility, they weren't reviewed until after the tour started). Rest assured that once the tour starts, it will likely generate the coverage necessary to satisfy NTOUR and you can revert the redirect away. If you'd prefer to work on the article in draftspace up until then, I'd also be fine with that. signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks a lot, I totally get it now. I'll restart the article in a few days time when the tour starts. Bye. MikeØwen Let's have a nice cup of tea and a friendly chat 17:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Koffee with Karan episodes (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Why do we need an episode listing for a talk / variety show? It's not like it's going to go into reruns that people need to keep track of the episode titles.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

my article moved to draft

my article moved to draft
why my article is moved to draft without permittion by under user Dimas gilang (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ReGroup Page Pulled?

Hola, Rosguill! I could use some help fixing my page. I've been flagged for using too many primary sources, yet four of my seven references are secondary (two blogs, a newspaper, and the national GuideStar organization). I was also flagged for not having links to other Wikipedia articles, but I have two such links.

We are a new organization, so there is not much out on us yet, which is why I created the page. Every detail has a reference. I used two existing veterans' nonprofits as my examples to build this from, and both have fewer outside references and internal Wikipedia links than my page.

What am I doing wrong?

howardcp6

Howardcp6 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Howardcp6: Thanks for following up on this. I wouldn't worry too much about the tags, as the reason that the article was moved to draft is because it currently doesn't meet the notability guidelines specified at WP:ORGCRITE, the subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies (see also WP:GNG, the general notability guideline for articles). Currently, of the sources provided in the draft, the only in-depth coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject is the Herald-Zeitung article, and even that is borderline as a relatively small local paper (may not be reliable) specifically writing about the subject expanding to its local area (which is basically routine reporting). In order to merit an article, we generally strive for the subject to be the focus of multiple articles providing in-depth, independent coverage at reliable sources. Of the other sources provided, two are blogs (generally not considered reliable, see WP:BLOGS), one is a database entry (not in-depth), and the rest are from the organization's website.
Additionally, you should be aware of wikipedia's policies on conflict-of-interest editing. Quickly summarized, if you are affiliated with the organization, you really shouldn't be editing its wikipedia page, although you are more than welcome to provide resources and comments in the talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frank Zappa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Zappa. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Link Spam Removal

Hello, I have seen you around and thought of reaching out to you for this help. Please go to List of magazines in India. In the "Bengali" section, the first mention is link vandalism - I am unable to edit the template to remove the link. Csgir (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Csgir: Done. In the future, it's often easiest to edit templates in source mode rather than in the visual editor. signed, Rosguill talk 05:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, great. Thank you. I didn't know :) Have a great day! Rosguill Csgir (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Information icon Why are you removed a page Deepak (actor) ? If, you are sure with the page, then leave a reason for deletion on my Talk page. Valmiki (Ramayana) (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Valmiki (Ramayana): Articles are expected to meet the general notability guideline, otherwise they are subject to deletion or being redirected. signed, Rosguill talk 06:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Rosguill, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thanks for your help and contributions Rosguill Doratig (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

La Barbe

Hi Rosguill, some changes have been made to the page La Barbe since it was first edited, could you please look at it as you have placed a banner. --Nattes à chat (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat: Thanks for following up on this. I've removed the "lead too long" banner as that is clearly no longer an issue. However there's still some grammatical issues that need copyediting, and the "Origin" section still has no citations. signed, Rosguill talk 17:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine Dining restaurants in Australia

Thanks for reviewing my article. Do you recommend that i call my page 'fine dining' as there is no pre-existing article on that topic. My knowledge however is based on Australian restaurants so i will create the page in the hope of other users eventually adding to it so it is not just based on one region. The article that briefly mentions Fine Dining is Types of Restaurants however the information is very limited. This is why i am expanding on this topic on the knowledge that i am familiar with which is Australian. Would you also suggest that i create the article as a list to avoid 'advertising' qualities?--Julia Tanev (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


@Julia Tanev: Thanks for following up on this. The issue with the article is that the citations don't quite justify the content, which relies on synthesis and original research, unfortunately a violation of Wikipedia policy. Moreover, the fact that there don't appear to be any other "Fine dining in Country X" articles makes me skeptical that sources exist that would justify an article with its scope. Some of the information in the article could be repurposed in another article that doesn't attempt to cover as broad of a subject. I'd encourage you to try starting a discussion at Wikiproject Food to see what editors with more experience specifically writing about food have to say (although I have to admit that you may not find much success there, seems like there's not too much active discussion). Other places to try to discuss it and get some input are WikiProject Companies (which includes restaurants), the teahouse, or The Village Pump miscellaneous message board. signed, Rosguill talk 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Howard Fields (musician)

Hey, we have both redirected the article Howard Fields (musician), and I assume you did so through the New Page Patrol process like I did. In both cases, the author reverted the redirect by claiming that the musician has plenty of sources. The current version has a few but I still don't think the musician passes WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:EXIST among others. Check out the current version and you might consider nominating it for deletion if you find such an action necessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Gregory Scott Cummins

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Gregory Scott Cummins, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Senator2029 “Talk” 21:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Related to this, While the NPP flowchart didn't previously mention 'likely to be contested', this has recently been added. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Senator2029:, @Insertcleverphrasehere:, Got it. It seemed like a gray area for this article, as the closing admin for the previous AfD concluded that it should be deleted but that recreations would not be eligible for WP:G4 if created by other editors, but didn't mention PROD. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Rosguill, I appreciate you being vigilant about low-quality articles that are recreated after deletion. It is all too easy for content that doesn't belong to be added to Wikipedia, so it's good to at least put it up for some form of deletion, and then let bureaucratic process do the rest. Keep up the good work! Senator2029 “Talk” 22:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Maintenant le Peuple

I've referenced every detail of this article. What do you want further referenced? — Derim Hunt 09:10, 25 October 2018 (ECT)

@Derim Hunt: Citations for the list content would be nice, but don't feel that you need to take it upon yourself to fix every template on an article you've created. The article has passed the new page review process and is fully part of the encyclopedia. signed, Rosguill talk 07:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

About article Open to the End

Hello Mr Rosguill ! I want to tell you: that tactic, it's not Mongol's tactic only. I never see anyone write about it in English language before-time. So, I just find a name for it, excuse me if that wrong phrase. Now I saw the article in Draft:Open to the End, alright, you can delete now, do not want to the time after 6 months. I don't care it because I don't hope you can understand. So, I will not explain anything to anyone. You just do it. GOOD JOB ! Đông Minh (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Simpson

You inserted a notability tag on this article, with this note: "while the subject has worked on several seemingly notable cases, there doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage of Simpson himself." The subject has not only served as an attorney on important cases, but has proven himself, by the frequency with which he has appeared and been quoted in print and broadcast media, to be an expert in the topics on which he speaks, such as the death penalty, DNA testing and reimbursement of the wrongly incarcerated. He has also published in scholarly journals and has widely lectured. The article also includes detailed information on his educational background, which is relevant to his legal qualifications. The "in-depth coverage" you write about seems to be information like date of birth, possible spouse or children, etc., all of which are irrelevant for establishing notability. Personally, I think it is ironic that when so many articles on Wikipedia stand unchallenged without sourcing of any kind, you should question the notability of this subject when the article contains literally hundreds of citations from 53 different sources. Therefore, I am undoing your notability tag. --Dylanexpert (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Reason for putting 'unreliable sources' on the Koffee with Karan episode list page?

Hi Rosguill,

Can you please explain why you put a tag on the sources listed on this page as unreliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Koffee_with_Karan_episodes

As you know, that page has undergone the draft treatment and was recently approved by user AngusWoof. It was drafted because the initial source, TvDB.com was not a good enough source. But since then I have found the website of the parent company that owns the show (Hotstar), and they do indeed have a collection of ALL the episodes of the show, grouped by season. Like other content pages (i.e. Hulu), you can watch any episode you like, from any season you like. On each season's page is a catalog of all episodes in that season, with each video having the episode number as well as the date of its original airing. Here is an example for season 5, for example:

https://www.hotstar.com/tv/koffee-with-karan/s-74/seasons/season-5/ss-4109

Since this is the direct channel of the company of that owns the show, a primary source of the episodes themselves and when they aired, I think this is very definition of a reliable link and the 'unreliable sources' tag should not be needed. If you believe otherwise, please explain your reasoning. For now I am going to remove the tag for now, awaiting an explanation about them from you.

user:AngusWoof himself said [here]:

"Hotstar would be okay. That seems to list episodes by season for On Demand kind of services so it is like Hulu. Thanks, that would be much better than TVDB. Please see the edit I did for season 1 on how to reference"

So I think he would agree that the sources are reliable. Let us know your thoughts, thanks. Rush922 (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rush922: Thanks for following up on this. While the list currently has enough references to reliable sources to remain published, it still includes some sources that are less-than-reliable, such as the Twitter post. Thus, the template isn't a blanket condemnation of the sourcing, nor a threat of deletion, but rather a notice that there remain sources that should be replaced. signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense then. In that case I have gone and replaced that Twitter post with a more reliable news article which reiterates its message; that should make almost all the references on that article good ones, if I'm not mistaken. So I guess for now we can take off that tag. But I'll keep that template in mind for the future, thanks.Rush922 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dean Fraser-Phillips

Hello Rosguill. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dean Fraser-Phillips, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: (co)writing songs for notable bands indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 15:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Gbksoft

I saw where you tried to PROD that article. It's pretty blatant advertising and it also appears there may be a COI involved. I left a note on their TP because their only edits are the company and the software game it developed and produced, Defend Ukraine. Atsme✍🏻📧 02:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Noctivagus

Dear Rosguill, before I submit the draft Noctivagus for review. Its better to ask you, if everthing is alrigth now?.. What you need more specific...--Grazina12 (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grazina12: I'd say the article still has a way to go. I don't have time to read through all the cited sources, but a vast majority of them are unreliable. As a general rule, Facebook, youtube links, band websites, and anywhere that just hosts the band's music for download or streaming is not a reliable source. Most blogs are also questionable. What is needed to demonstrate notability is coverage in reliable sources, such as reviews in magazines or newspapers that have editorial boards and good reputations. I would actually suggest that you remove citations that aren't reliable, so that it's easier to pick out the reliable ones and judge it on its merits. An article with three good citations is better than one with three good citations and twelve bad ones. signed, Rosguill talk 23:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Asmara under Italy

Good morning. You put this article under copyvio investigation, but when I check (admittedly, superficially) the added text, I see that it is indeed on blogspot, but I have a strong suspicion that this is a reverse copy of our article Asmara at some earlier date. In this case, this is a move without attribution, which should be attributed rather than deleted. Do you know more about this? Also pinging @Cmanse: who added the last instance of the text and accepted AfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: It appears you are correct. My original suspicion was that the article was copied from http:// researchomnia.blogspot.com/2015/05/italian-asmara-italian-massaua.html, which is dated to mid-2015, well before Asmara under Italy was written. However, it appears that the same content exists as a draft of Asmara from before the blog was posted. Is it possible for me to just revert my edit opening the investigation, or how else should we proceed? signed, Rosguill talk 23:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I think the easiest is to revert and to mention in the edit summary that content has been copied from Asmara. I assume you did not open a CCI case, otherwise some administration would be needed there (which I can easily do).--Ymblanter (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I did not, as it seemed at the time that the "copyvio" content was just being naively brought back from a revert, and the editor who originally added it to Asmara under Italy has either been banned or is otherwise inactive (I forget which, I think they were also an IP). I reported it at the Copyright problems page and have since struck that entry. signed, Rosguill talk 23:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Homeschooling

Rosguill, we would like you to remove the proposal for deletion. If you cannot find information on homeschooling and it leaves you to call your findings 'insignificant', that does no right to the tens of millions of homeschoolers around the world. The International Homeschooling Day has been established in 2018. More information, references and sources will be added. 

mvsa 07:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlies van St Annaland (talk • contribs)
@Marlies van St Annaland: Please provide reliable sources saying that the event has wide observance. The mere existence of home schooled children does not mean that an "international homeschooling day" is significant. For more information on what is and isn't considered notable on Wikipedia, please see the general notability guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 07:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Idaho Propostion 1 (2018) - Page Curation

Hello Rosguill,

I will be happy to touch up the Idaho Propostion 1 (2018) article. However, because I am admittedly new to Wikipedia, I am not sure what exactly I should change. The article itself does not appear to have any misspellings or grammatical errors. But, if there is something you think should be changed, I would really appreciate a little guidance.

I am going to remove the tags, because I think they distract from the info in the article, but I am willing to make edits in order to better fit Wikipedia's style. Just let me know what I should concentrate on. ThanksYurrp (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yurrp: Thanks for following up on this. My thoughts when tagging were that the section headings were quite long, to the point where they potentially violate neutrality by giving each section a very specific framing. Additionally, I'd question the decision to have essentially the entire article under one heading which is then broken up into sub-headings. As written, the article feels more like a newspaper putting editorializing section headers on an article than it does an encyclopedia article. You certainly shouldn't have claims in section headings (such as "Historical racing was previously legal in Idaho" or "99.8% of tribal Political action committee funding provided by Coeur d'Alene tribe"), even if they're well-supported by citations in the content. signed, Rosguill talk 01:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll take another stab at it, keeping your feedback in mind. I should have it updated by tomorrow. Thank you for your help!Yurrp (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rosguill: If you get a chance, let me know if this Tie signs is an improvement. Thanks again for your feedback.Yurrp (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yurrp: Assuming you meant to send me to Idaho Proposition 1 (2018), it looks much better now! Although I'd say that as a rule of thumb, if the lead is longer than the rest of the article, you should probably split a significant amount of it into either an existing section or a new one. signed, Rosguill talk 06:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Yes, sorry for the mix up, and thanks for the feedback. Also, I broke out a couple parts from the lead, as you recommended. I think it flows much better now. Thanks for your help.Yurrp (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asmara under Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Empire Line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sunrisers Hyderabad in 2019

Hi. Thanks for reviewing the above page. I observed that you placed copy-edit tag on that page. I made some changes and would be great to check again and let me know if there are still any changes that need to be addressed. Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Marc Elrich

I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed. You're right that it was previously deleted at AFD but that was before he won the election for Montgomery County, Maryland executive (population over 1 million). I did not write the article but had an admin put it in my user space and would have moved it over if he won but someone else did it early. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill Thank you for the review and suggestions of improving the Megan Devine article. I am new to creating articles so your additional feedback to my questions will be most appreciated.

When I used Youtube, and Laughing Squid as references/citations, it was to create a direct linkage to the animation Ms. Devine produced, of which the content most succinctly represents her perspective on supporting grievers. I've removed those references and instead created a URL link so readers have an easy way to access the video.

The use of Sounds True as a reference/citations was in reference to Ms Devine's published book. Sounds True is the publisher of that book and is well known and most notably has a Wiki article themselves. I thought I saw other author pages referenced this way (although can't put my finger on them at the moment). So I've removed the Sounds True reference from the opening paragraph as the other references are (hopefully) sufficient.

I've added other relevant references today and will continue searching for more and need to deal with the article being an orphan. Iwanted to get your input as to whether I'm going in the right direction based on your comments. Thank you for your time. ElephantEar (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)ElephantEar

Follow up on Megan Devine suggestions

Hello Rosguill Thank you for the review and suggestions of improving the Megan Devine article. I am new to creating articles so your additional feedback to my questions will be most appreciated.

When I used Youtube, and Laughing Squid as references/citations, it was to create a direct linkage to the animation Ms. Devine produced, of which the content most succinctly represents her perspective on supporting grievers. I've removed those references and instead created a URL link so readers have an easy way to access the video.

The use of Sounds True as a reference/citations was in reference to Ms Devine's published book. Sounds True is the publisher of that book and is well known and most notably has a Wiki article themselves. I thought I saw other author pages referenced this way (although can't put my finger on them at the moment). So I've removed the Sounds True reference from the opening paragraph as the other references are (hopefully) sufficient.

I've added other relevant references today and will continue searching for more and need to deal with the article being an orphan. Iwanted to get your input as to whether I'm going in the right direction based on your comments. Thank you for your time. ElephantEar (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)ElephantEar

@ElephantEar: Thanks for following up on this. You seem to be making good improvements. Ultimately, what we want from a source is that it is reliable and independent. In this case, if Sounds True is the publisher of Devine's book, then they are not independent, even if they are generally notable and reliable. That doesn't mean that you're forbidden from using the source (for instance, if you needed a source for some minor detail about the book that you couldn't find anywhere else, it would be ok to cite them), but the source won't count toward the subject's notability, and as a general practice if the same information can be found at an independent source, that will be a better source to cite. I would suggest making sure that you've read through the notability guideline linked in the previous sentence before creating more articles, as it sets standards for the amount of coverage that you should be able to provide in order for a subject to be considered notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, and it will save you from doing unnecessary work trying to create articles for subjects that just don't cut it. There's also subject-specific notability guidelines that provide additionally criteria that can be used to justify notability–these are generally named after the subject in question, so you can find them by searching for WP:NAUTHOR, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:NBIO, WP:NBOOK, WP:NATHLETE, WP:BAND, etc. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Per your advice I have made changes in the article” Baskut Tuncak” It was actually good and I thank you for directing me to improve the article. Please let me know if there is anything else I have to do. Alex-h (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

re. Talk:Helen Lorraine

Does Martha Speaks really fail notability guidelines?

First of all, the author isn't even notable enough to warrant her own article. See this diff. I don't even think the book is notable because it only has one source. I am requesting a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Speaks (book).

Third, it relies heavily on first-party (primary) sources for its essential (important) information. There are only three second-party sources - two of them are dead links, the third was published 10 years ago. Thus, you could be right about the TV show failing WP:GNG. As an ordinary children's show, it probably would never get worldwide significance and recognition. Exponentially far more TV shows have worldwide recognition than do — and the difference between a show that gets an article and a show that doesn't is not a matter of "any show gets to have one as soon as an editor actually takes the time to make one", but of "shows only get one if their characters actually receive real-world coverage and analysis of their significance". Unfortunately, Martha Speaks failed the test, big time.

The characters list was redirected in a deletion discussion a few weeks ago. Additionally, the characters's individual articles have been redirected for lack of notability:

[5][6][7][8][9]

Even think about it, think about more notable shows like VeggieTales and Danny Phantom. Those shows warrant articles and character lists because of their massive notability. If you even asked me, Daniel Fenton, Bob the Tomato, and Larry the Cucumber themselves would be notable to warrant their own articles. But as seen in the much above more discussions, Helen Lorraine, her Daniel Fenton-inspired father, and Mariella clearly aren't even notable to warrant any. Arthur (TV series) is much more notable and has its titular protagonist warrant an article. Just because Martha Speaks is affiliated with a notable TV show doesn't mean it is just as notable.

A search of Martha Speaks on JSTOR provides 0 sufficient results. The show is mentioned in some RS but they aren't independent of the topic in question. Zero results on Google News also. 2407:7000:A269:8200:A484:5669:284:827D (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_2&oldid=1048393993"