User talk:Rosguill/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Help with Kifli

This article is to be PotD on January 20, and the article is in rough shape. Normally we start from the lead, but the lead is just a list of the names for this item in different languages, and most of those names don't bring up much on a google search. I'm hoping to get some help from people who have mad language skills like yourself to see if we can develop a reasonable paragraph to use for the PotD blurb.

Congrats on passing your RfA, btw! I was watching yours and Newslinger's but was so crazy busy both onwiki and IRL that I didn't have time to do due diligence unless it looked like my !vote would make a difference. :) --valereee (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thanks for the congratulations. Unfortunately, it looks like my language skills may not be too useful here: my main overlap with the subject matter is German, but the deWiki article appears to have already been mined for the Origin section and googling Kipferl didn't turn much up in the way of RS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! I'm using a scattershot approach here, just reaching out to anyone I can think of! :) --valereee (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Whitelist Guideline

Just was looking at your addition to the Redirect guidelines. While what you write is no doubt 100% true for you and you're doing the overwhelming amount of work there I don't think it should be immortalized formally. We don't offer such "in practice" language at AUTOPATROL or other actual PERMS even though these in practice standards exist. One of the reasons being that when multiple sysops work their standards are bound to disagree. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, we currently don't offer any minimum criteria for RWHITELIST other than "good track record creating redirects", so I thought that some more concrete suggestions would be in order. Given your comments, maybe a solution would be to say something like "minimum criteria is generally over 100 redirects created with few-to-none deleted outside of housekeeping processes". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at NPR just because we probably shouldn't just be deciding this between the two of us :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Scottish Independence DRN

Yes. There isn't a dispute if all but one of the participants have been banned or indeffed. We don't need to give a forum to sockpuppets to quarrel. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice 2

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BIM_Collaboration_Format

You added the citations needed banner to this article: BIM_Collaboration_Format I think it can be removed now, but as the main author I think someone else should vet this. Please take a look and remove the banner if appropriate. duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DuLithgow, done, thanks for the improvements, although I actually was not the editor who originally added that tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Educare Georgia

Hello, Rosguill. I saw your advert template in Educare Georgia. I tried to improve the article and changed some things, which I thought were problematic. Can you please review it and tell me, if the article is any better now? What else could be done for further improvement? Thanks in advance!-SHOTHA ^[UT] 08:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

SHOTHA, Thanks for the improvements, I've gone ahead and removed the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks a lot! ^^-SHOTHA ^[UT] 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Encourage new article creation

Hi, I missed your WT:R suggestion and dumped the consequences in WT:RFD#Encourage new article creation. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Y'know, I actually hadn't realized that we had directly contradictory information on that page. I'll look into whether either of those justifications was inserted without consensus, gather my thoughts, and eventually comment there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I definitely didn't consider what's new with ILLs since Wikidata exists, obviously missing ILLs kill the old keep rationale. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I saw your comment on administrators noticeboard. This user is even removing my dispute tags, here and here, what should I do? Beshogur (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You could try reading the WP:DT link Hunan201p showed you in the history section, or the most recent addition to the talk page at Ashina tribe. Hunan201p (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Hound. Are you talking to yourself? Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. Both of you should take a break and let other editors state their opinions on the article talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Userpage suggestion

In your bio, you say "there's a solid chance you're here because I reviewed a redirect you created and you're not sure why." But then you don't actually say why! I now see it's a normal part of Wikipedia housekeeping, but the NPP page takes a while to get to the point. Might be a good idea (and avoid more questions like this one) if you said a bit more here. ~ CZeke (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CZeke, thanks for the heads up. I used to have an explanation on there from when redirect reviewing was still new and sporadic. I removed the section after some time, but I guess I had never removed the prompt from the beginning of the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello, How are you doing! I checked your contributions to Wikipedia. It is very great job. I wish you success in the future. And I have a suggestion for you. How can I contact with you? Could you give me your email or write to me on gulyora9920@gmail.com Kind regards with many thanks, Gulyora Gulyora9920 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gulyora9920:, you should be able to contact me using an button on the left sidebar of this page that says "email this user". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just checkin'

Wanted to make sure you are still chugging along with a despite all the new tasks you've taken on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, so far so good, although I'm rapidly realizing that helping out at ANI feels like herding a group of distraught middle schoolers 90% of the time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124

Hi- Last week you blocked Smith0124 for edit warring. Yesterday, he went on a revision rampage that is far beyond what is in the spirit of Wikipedia and in violation of his pledges when he was unblocked. One revision he did, of one of my edits, was reversed with the decree that "The content is not changing." He needs to be spoken to again and possibly blocked. Also, he's been found by checkuser to be a possible sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, Peterjack1. I wanted you to be aware of this. Thanks.108.21.182.146 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't take care of this at the moment. If you suspect sockpuppeting, you should open a case at WP:SPI. You may also want to reach out to 331dot, the admin who unblocked Smith0124. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did both of those things. Here's a link to the sockpuppet investigation that found Smith0124 to be a "possible" sock. I also reached out to 331dot around the same time I reached out to you. All I ask is that you monitor when you are able to. Regardless, thanks again and have a great day. 108.21.182.146 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Manual issue on Browser fingerprint article

Hello,

Thanks for your review on the Browser fingerprint article. I'm here because you add a manual issue to the article. I agree but I have difficulties to know exactly which part are problematics and how we can improve it. Even if I have read WP:NOTMANUAL. Can I ask you to give me some examples or advices ?

Thanks, Ergozat (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ergozat, "can be" phrases that describe a subject's usage, such as Identification can be used for various purposes are much more reminiscent of a guidebook or manual than a Wikipedia article, which should instead use the simple present tense (e.g. identification is used for various purposes), which is what prompted me to place the tag. That having been said, having read through the article again more carefully, I think that it has a wide array of issues with its grammar and tone that need to be addressed, and thus I've swapped the manual tag for a copyediting tag. I've also added an external links tag, as external links should only be included in an external links section at the bottom of the article, and should not be included in article text (see WP:EL for more information). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response and review. I will take all that in account and improve the article accordingly. Ergozat (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfD closure

Hi Rosguill, would you be willing to reconsider this RfD closure? There wasn't much participation, and Anon had a policy-based rationale for keeping (WP:RKEEP#7) so I don't see how there was consensus to delete. I'd prefer it be relisted so additional participants can weigh the pros and cons of Keep7 and Del10 in this case. Best, — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Anon linked me to the discussion above where it seems they withdrew their keep argument, so I can see how you found consensus there. Feel free to ignore this! — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Review Request

Hi, I noticed you recently tagged the article One Part Woman for copy edit issues. I've edited the page to fix what I could, and I was wondering if you could perhaps have a quick run through the page to point out any more work that needs to be done, and/or any particular sections that are not up to par. I hope to someday nominate this article as a GA, so any feedback/general comments would be extremely helpful. Thanks for your time! GinaJay (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

GinaJay, thanks for your edits. While there's a handful of questionable word choices and very minor errors left, I think that the article is currently in a state where the tag is no longer necessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentorship for New Page Patrol

Hello Rosguill, Hope you are doing good"?

I will like to mentor under you for the New Page Patrol program and become a good review ass well. I will stick to your timezome and any convenient channel of communication.

Kolapoimam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kolapoimam. Looking at your edit overview on xtools, it seems that you haven't quite hit the recommended minimum edit count of 1,000 edits for NPP mentorship, so I'm going to decline mentorship at this time. If you're interested in engaging with the anti-vandalism side of Wikipedia, you can try signing up for counter-vandalism training at WP:CVUA. Alternatively, if you want to help out on a wide variety of articles and learn a lot more about Wikipedia in the process, I would try taking up the tasks listed at the community portal. I think that this is a much better method to learn your way around Wikipedia than just creating new articles, as it will put you in touch with a wide variety of different processes and subjects, as well as having more opportunities for collaboration with other editors and generally having lower stakes than article creation. Let me know if you have any other questions. As a final word of advice, new talk page sections are typically placed at the bottom of the page, not the top. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Great,thanks for your input. I really appreciate. Kolapoimam (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for recently reviewing seven of my redirects! I appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Audrey Page

Curious about the deleted page. Is this considered a one time story?Nationalnewsorg (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationalnewsorg "One time story" is not the phrasing I would use, but yes I think that this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Belated...

Felicitations on your RfA Sorry I was away at the time and did not have the opportunity to lend my support. No worries on your block btw. It was solid. Speaking of which, I am reminded that when I passed my (rather bloody) RfA, I had this naive idea that I was going to be the first admin to go through my fist six months w/o blocking anyone. I had no interest in the drama boards or ANI. My plan was to roam around CSD and just do the light cleanup work that needed doing. My ambition didn't even last 24 hrs. While cleaning up at CSD I stumbled on a CSD G10 nom that was a vulgar homophobic screed aimed at some poor non-entity which I promptly deleted. And then I realized I couldn't let the page creator get away with it and I would feel foolish asking another admin to handle it... so, yeah. I remember trying to figure out the block template and then spent like 5 minutes explaining in the box why I was indeffing the bleeping little troll. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, thanks for the congratulations and the reassurance. I didn't think that anyone was likely to object, but figured that dropping an indef on someone with no block history was probably worthy of review. Glad to have had that cleared up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you go along you are going to run into cases of obvious NOTHERE editing and sometimes indeffinite blocks are the only reasonable response. Most of those situations will be self evident and won't require a review. But you will never go wrong asking for a 2nd opinion. You may want to take a quick glance at WP:ZT which I wrote to help with similar type situations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, thanks, I'll give that a read _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong - China relations

Hi Rosguill, I see you have added a redirect to the new page on Hong Kong-China relations translated from a quality article on Zhwiki by Translation Studies MSc student at the University of Edinburgh as part of last semester's course programme. The student feels that as their article covers relations in general rather than just the conflict per se that there should be space for both articles. Having looked over both, I do think there is overlap so perhaps an article merge might be the best way forward? Let me know what you think as I would like, as much as possible, to preserve the translation effort that the student has put in here. Very best regards, Stinglehammer (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Stinglehammer, I think that both merging or having separate articles could be viable solutions. However, if the articles are to be kept separate, then care needs to be taken to make sure that they actually have different scopes and aren't just content forks. From looking at the drafts, I'm left with the impression that perhaps the best way forward would be to merge the articles, and then perform a split that avoids duplicating content (and that is properly wikilinked between the two articles) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

M. G. Manjunatha moved to draftspace

M. G. Manjunatha moved to draftspace https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:M._G._Manjunatha

Thank you Sir. I'll improve the references, as per requirement & submit for review as soon as possible. Thanks for guiding me to improve this article. Mallikarjunasj (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Good, simplified close at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Balochi numerals

Hi Rosguill,

Good, simplified approach to your close and your interpretation of consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Balochi numerals. I'm just wondering if you might add to the final portion of your closing rationale statement where you write, "(...) with no prejudice toward editors renominating Hindko and Sindhi for further consideration," or making the suggested change(s) boldly themselves to save further discussion?

For clarity, I'm not looking to make any further changes myself, but I find editors often forget redirects can be redirected to plausible targets boldly, so this would be a small reassurance.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, good call. When I was writing out the closing statement I was primarily thinking of deletion as the desired change, but you're right that Uanfala also suggested the addition of content as an alternative solution. I'll make the suggested change. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, No problem. Yeah, for deletion, re-nomination would likely be best. Sounds good! Otherwise, great close...I contemplated awarding you the Closer's Barnstar, but don't want to overuse it. Doug Mehus T·C 17:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For responding when we needed an uninvolved admin to read an RFC before launching it. I appreciate the thoroughness of your responses, and your willingness to explain your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hirohiko Kakegawa

Since you're the one who speedied the last creation, and it has a lot of sources, can you please merge its history or something with Draft:Hirohiko Kakegawa which I've edited to show it passes WP:SINGER 2/10? ミラP 19:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I've restored Hirohiko Kakegawa. An actual history merge does not appear to be doable at this time, but you should be able to just add your new contributions to that article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It was that easy? Thank you. ミラP 20:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I've recently learned that most admin actions are almost too easy to execute. The only hard part is figuring out whether they're appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it was, since I discovered a notability claim that hadn't been brought up before. ミラP 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Miraclepine, oh yeah, this time around it wasn't a difficult case. I was more thinking about blocks, deletions, etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Dy-no-mite!"

I thank you for your continued diligence in teaching me the ins and outs of NPP. A question... what is policy on such a redirect? While I understand the exclamation mark, are the quotation marks necessary? DannyS712 bot III marked it reviewed, but I was thinking a move to Dy-no-mite! might be more appropriate. We already have Dy-no-mite. Courtesy ping UnitedStatesian. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, I think moving it to Dy-no-mite! is the way to go. While it's plausible someone may search for this with the quotation marks because it is a quote, Wikipedia's back end automatically removes quotation mark literals from search queries (try searching for "Good Times"). What's more, it seems that the drop down search results can't display titles bracketed by quotation marks, so moving it will both not inconvenience anyone and will render the search term more legible for people looking for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for Sheila Gunn Reid and Christopher Wilson (reporter)

(talk page stalker) Noticed the above related question from an editor, so am asking here

@Rosguill:

Regarding the above redirects, I put them to RfD, but then speedied them because they were created by the sockpuppet account of User:Charles lindberg, who had already been blocked at the time these redirects were created by the sock, User:VivaSlava. Glades12 de-tagged my CSD tagging, and I'm not normally one to delete everything of a sockpuppet or blocked user, but in this case, these were redirects that never should've been created as articles in the first place. There was no substantive edits to either, beyond a mere citation addition to a previous diff. Nevertheless, my understanding is that since they were created by the sockpuppet account and because they were also created after the master account was blocked in an SPI, we can delete these regardless of any prior editing history.

Can you clarify, and, if so, can I re-tag for CSD so we don't have to wait a week to delete this crud?

Note: I've previously posted this to User talk:DESiegel a couple hours ago, but he's probably busy, in a different timezone, or the like. So if you end up replying first, I will just tell him to disregard the above post.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 17:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, it seems like Glades12's objection here is that Kvng's dePROD conversion to a redirect comprises a significant edit, thus invalidating G5. I'm not sure I would have independently made this call myself, but I can see the logic behind it, and I think it's best to proceed with RfD at this time. In a sense, you could interpret Kvng's edit as essentially deleting the G5-able article and creating a new redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yeah, I agree along the same lines with you. I agree that a de-PROD isn't likely construed as a significant edit. Can you clarify, though, if we can ignore the significant edits part if the article/redirect was created by an already blocked account? It seems like the blocked account was blocked before the sockpuppet account (which created the redirects in question) was found out/confirmed. It seems like a really borderline case of a G5 then. No one would likely object to G5-ing this redirect, but there's not really a strong case for G5, either. Kind of a tough one. RfD is fine...I suspect it will close as delete anyway. Doug Mehus T·C 17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical you're laying out here. I don't think there's any case where we can ignore further significant edits, and created by an already blocked account is the only condition under which G5 applies other than violations of topic-bans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, I'm kind of confused now. User:Charles lindberg was the confirmed operator of multiple sockpuppet accounts. It was confirmed to be a sockpuppet operator and blocked before these two redirects were created by User:VivaSlava, which was later added to the SPI investigation in 2018. So, my thesis is that since the sockpuppeteer was already blocked, G5 can still apply even though the further sockpuppet account hadn't yet been discovered. Does that explanation make more sense? Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation, if you haven't clicked through yet, is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charles lindberg/Archive Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, still not sure we're on the same page, but my response is just that the specifics of the original sockmaster don't matter because Kvng's edit can be construed as a significant contribution by an editor in good standing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, fair enough. So, bottom line, being created by a sockpuppet account or by a sockpuppet account of an editor's account that was blocked before the redirect was created does not nullify the "significant" contribution test. The differing view is whether redirecting is a significant contribution. I tend to regard "significant" contributions as adding more than 50 words to an article, broadly speaking, but perhaps the policy isn't written that way. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to put forth a policy proposal to further clarify what "significant" contributions by good-faith editors are? If so, I'll work on something for this spring, when I have more time. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, Eh, I don't know that it's worth a proposal, my guess is that it would get shot down for being rule creep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, (sigh)...we don't want more rules, but at the same time, are annoyed by purposely vague rules, which only prompt further disagreements and varying interpretations from one case to another. Thanks for your replies, though! Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, FWIW, my reasoning for why that may be undesirable rule creep is that I'm not sure all conversions to redirect are created equal. Consider the following example:

1. User:Sock creates redirect A pointing to article B
2. User:Sock converts redirect A to an article
3. User:Sock gets blocked for being a sock

Now, if a good faith editor were to reinstate the redirect at A to point to B with an edit summary of restoring previous redirect, I think that can be clearly considered to not be significant. But if that editor were to point the redirect to a new, unrelated article C, that's pretty clearly a significant change. There's then a gray area between these cases if the editor points A to another article which is related to B, or where the editor points A back to B but gives an edit summary justifying the change independently of the blocked editor's contributions.

We could try to come up with a very specific set of rules based on the previous example, but I think it's cleaner just to leave it to people's discretion on the spot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay fair enough. I do see your point, and it's similar to why I'm in the "hold on a minute, don't delete all articles created by a sockpuppet if they meet our guidelines" camp. Having the imprecise wording allows the subsequently created redirect to delete by G5 (although, personally, I would prefer to treat that as a new redirect so possibly merits a new discussion and if it's an absolute nonsense redirect, then "patent nonsense" could be used, perhaps?). Nevertheless, I won't worry about it, and appreciate your clarification. Doug Mehus T·C 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I tend to view any change too large to be correctly described as a minor edit as being significant enough to block a G5 revert. But then I don't like G5, and rarely do any G5 deletions. indeed I would prefer to repeal G5 altogether, along with WP:BMB, and revert only harmful edits by sockpuppets, but it is pretty clear that there is not and is not likely to be consensus for that change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Handling New Pages from Blocked Users

Hi, I needed your advice on handling pages in the NPP where the users are marked Blocked. For example, the oldest page is Certain Expenses case where the creator - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davystole - is Blocked. Does this mean that these articles have to be summarily marked for deletion? The Certain Expenses case article is informative and might pass notability whereas another on the backlog, Ava_Kolker has been created by a sock-puppet, which can mean an undisclosed COI. Kindly help with understanding. Csgir (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Csgir, we can file for G5 if an article is created in violation of a block and no one else has made significant edits. In the case of Certain Expenses case, it looks like the editor was CU-blocked without any further elaboration, which means that that account was a sock of another blocked editor, and that this therefore is a violation of the block, so it can be G5 deleted. Ava Kolker on the other hand is not eligible, as several other editors appear to have contributed.

Also note that this is a can, not a must. If it is trivially obvious that an article's subject is notable and the article is not promotional, consider not filing for G5 (I'll often come across useful redirects created by block-evading editors, and will generally accept them). That having been said, don't waste time evaluating a difficult case if it's G5'able. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted Certain Expenses case. While it honestly looked fine as an article, it was created by a sock of Sarsaparilla, who is a long term abuser that has been WMF-banned. Thus, I don't think we can accept anything from them, even if it looks ok. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you so much for the clarification. Following suit. Csgir (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PhanChavez Request at DRN

Can you please take a look at the dispute request at DRN that was filed by PhanChavez about five days ago and do something with it, either open it or close it or something? No one has touched it, and I can't mess with it because I am a party to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification

Hi Rosguill, I just wanted to let you know that I or some other editor edit warred or something on the talk page of Ergo Sum in the congratulations section, and your congrats for deleted. Sorry if it was me! I should be able to make progress at NPPS sometime Monday afternoon. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 04:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, thanks for the heads up, it's not a big deal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

White Croatia RfC

Hello, Rosguill. I've resubmitted the Talk:White Croatia#RfC: Disputed additions as you didn't submit for closure. The outcome is self evident, but there a users who need it spelt out for them. Season's greetings! Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, is resubmitting it as an RfC the way to resolve it? I thought the general procedure was to just list it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, please bear with me. That, I believe, is the standard procedure (or it's not contrary to any 'policy' I've ever come across). There was a time that I would have submitted the original in the blink of an eye. I do have 43,538 edits to my name for a little bit more than being a pretty face. I've submitted for people who didn't bother them but, usually, if you're serious enough about an RfC to initiate it the first place, why should it be WP:COMPULSORY for someone else to do it on your behalf. I realise you must be busy, but the just don't bother starting. It's too late to change it now because Rose Red has already added a new RfC ID.

You'll have to forgive me my being so curt, but I'm feeling pissed off. Drag me to an AN/I for a lesson in civility. I've got level 4 mantle cell non-hodgkins lymphoma, permanent, severe xerostomia: no little bit of saliva as my parotoid glands were blown out by the third treatment when my neck literally developed lymph nodes like ball down my neck literally overnight. Our article doesn't explain that most of your taste buds are blown, food loses its taste... if only it just lost its taste. It's more of a reaction. Most foods make me feel nearly sick. Some foods have made me vomit (no I didn't need a Metoclopramide). Burning mouth syndrome isn't helped by pain killers. I hate meal time and have to force-feed myself. Neither is it fun waking up with both the palette of your mouth and your tongue turned into a sponge. You're told to sip on water all day, then end up getting up every half hour to piss so you don't even get time to fall asleep again. I'm not even going to go into the painful details of how I stop myself from drinking more than 2.7 litres a day. Best yet, I was told that the effects would start clearing up after about 2 or 3 weeks. I've had R-Chop, Autologous stem cell transplant, now I'm on R-ICE. None of them are fuzzy-wuzzy little remedies. They're exhausting and painful.

So you'll excuse me if I have chemo brain. Each treatment gave me 6 months of recovery, then a relapse. What do you reckon the odds are on this final 30% survival probability?

Apologies for the rant. It's been building up for so long that I was going to explode. You just happened to be the poor sod who's copping it from me because I put on my happy face, even with doctors and nurses. My oncologist and his side kicks refuse to acknowledge I've said anything when I've confronted them with the facts. They just ignore what I say and leave the room. Now that's honesty in the medical profession. Would you believe it? I've begged them to please speak honestly about it, but they simply won't. Ah, well, such is life, nine kids and no wife (husband/dog/cat/chimpanzee). Cheers for hearing out my bitching, even if you did tune out by the end of the first sentence. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, no worries, you are clearly going through some harrowing shit and it's ok to vent. As far as the RfC issue is concerned, however, I'm a bit confused. When you say that is the standard procedure, are you referring to relisting the RfC or to requesting closure at AN? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting closure at the AN using the previous RfC number. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, in that case, I'm tempted to just revert back to the expired RfC status and file a closure request to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. If you're not opposed I can go ahead and do it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I had a couple of unanticipated days in hospital, so I didn't bring my laptop, and forgot the charger for my iphone. ARRRGGGH! I'll never do that again.

If Rose Red is amenable to having the new RfC removed, go for it! I didn't think there'd be any more interested parties than already participated joining in, but you don't know what kind of meat and veg, socks, singlets, long-johns, trolls, lurkers and people who just like the idea of !voting (even though they don't know a jot about anything), etc. are hanging around. The sooner closed sensibly, the better. What's next on the agenda, are we going to be rewriting the article on Continental drift theory as if it were still being taught as standard geography? We have an overabundance of oddball articles as it stands. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for delaying but process but, as I thought, it's all pretty much wound up thanks to Armbrust closing off on the obvious and making sense of the entire ahistorical a-ethnographic (if it's not a word, call me Shakespeare and ring the world sanctioned English language dictionaries... pronto!)

Incidentally, I'm going to keep on gnoming as carefully as possible, but I'm signing out 'cos I'm really signing out fairly soon (as in terminal), so keep up your hard work. Wiki is a mad, NPOV project, yet it really is worth it because it keeps international intellectual debate in action, and that is empowerment worth passing on and mentoring. I've loved working on it, whether I agree or argue with someone. It was a great insight into how I worked as a paid researcher. Complete turn around in methodology... Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, thank you for the comment. I'd like to express my sincerest gratitude for your contributions to this project, and I am personally glad that I had the chance to collaborate with you here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Abby Hornacek

I am at a loss to understand why Abby Hornacek does not qualify as being notable enough for WP. She's a Fox News analyst and reporter, and frequently appears on several Fox programs, typically alongside Carley Shimkus. Is being a regular TV news personality on a major cable TV network not enough? — Loadmaster (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Loadmaster, being a news personality is not enough, we need multiple examples of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. As written before I converted the article to a redirect, we had two examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage, and one example of secondary coverage in a source of dubious reliability (Earn the Necklace). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being a good sport. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous copyright issue with 'Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020'

Hi there. I'm hoping you can give me some advice regarding a recent copyright issue.

Recently the Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 page was deleted due to a copyright infringement.

It was supposedly copied from this site. However, the text in question appears to have been based on previous years' Wikipedia entries which predates the text on the blog. See 2018 and 2019 for examples.

Is this a fair deletion? It seems more likely that the Eurovision website copied the text from Wikipedia and forgot to attribute it.

Is there any way of getting this re-evaluated? (I have recently created a new version of the page, based on the 2019 version, with updates and some revisions, so I'm not asking for the old content to be reinstated.) Thank you for any advice you can give! DivingSpicy (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DivingSpicy, the dropped attribution does happen and is probably what happened here. I didn't do a super thorough check when reverting last time due to the lack of justification in an edit summary when the content was reinstated. Generally when this is the case the content is retrievable on request, but it sounds like it isn't needed in this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Therapy

Hey Rosguill, thank you for your feedback about the sections and coi. I am thinking of creating an origins section to help separate the content as you suggested, but I am still new to this and am learning as I go. In terms of the coi, is there anything more I can do to substantiate neutrality? I have cited several unrelated and reliable sources to support the information. Would more citations help? Is it the wording that suggests a coi? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Hip-Hop Therapist (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Therapist, honestly, placing the COI tag was a knee jerk response based on your username. I gave the article another read and don't see any obvious neutrality or framing issues so I went ahead and removed the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I added a section as well, you were definitely right about it needing to be more organized. Thanks again Hip-Hop Therapist (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD help

I have nom'd Jamal Simmons for AfD. My first! Are you available to review my edits? Wanderer0 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wanderer0, Looks good. For future AfDs (and other XfDs), you can set them up more easily using WP:TWINKLE. If you get in the habit of creating lots of AfDs, you may also want to install User:Enterprisey/delsort. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you, I've been meaning to install 'delsort'. So that's how CAPTAIN RAJU (or is it CAPTAIN MEDUSA?) manages to easily add all the additional deletion sorting tags. Will that script add the tags both to the AfD discussion and to the appropriate deletion sorting list? (talk page stalker) Doug Mehus T·C 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, yes, if the script is working properly it will both perform the notification on the relevant list and the notice on the AfD. It's been a while since I set up this script, but I think if you have it installed it will also show up in Twinkle so you can apply listings while opening the AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yeah, Twinkle definitely has that functionality installed now by default, but only when creating an AfD. This will be useful so I can add deletion sorting tags post-AfD (sometimes I forget) and I always feel badly when the Captains, Shellwood, or Northamerica1000 have to come along and additional categories. Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Many thanks. (BTW. My dyslexic and myopic brainpan read WP:TWINKIES. I panicked… briefly… egad!) Wanderer0 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names. Italawar (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, I need your help. My edit here in history of India has been reverted for the fact that that article is “high-level”. But, my thought is, I am trying to improve a section of a high level article. It was nothing but good information I used from Indian National Congress article. Indian National Congress as you may know, is the most premiere organization of the Indian independence, however, it only got a footnote, so I added much needed material. Can you double-check for mistakes and put it back, if possible?

As mentioned, if you can double check and reinstate the section on the Indian National Congress. (2600:1001:B02F:47EE:DA:33FC:4E22:F244 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

The issue here is that History of India is an overview of all of India's history, and intentionally eschews detail in favor of more summary-style descriptions, combined with links to more specific articles. It seems like the content you're trying to add would be a good fit at Indian independence movement. If you really want to try to get your changes added to the History of India article, you should start a discussion on the talk page and try to gain a consensus for the addition (and it seems from the revert that other editors are willing to hear you out if you go through this process). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems like what you and Kautilya3 stated is correct. I should do more research in the next few months before taking it up in talk and be prepared. (2600:1001:B02F:47EE:DA:33FC:4E22:F244 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

References

Sinikka Sipilä

Hi Rosguill.

I added more citations from reliable, independent sources. For me it's very strange that you don't recognize one of the most well known institutions in the library world and the Finnish Library Association as reliable, but anyway. Thanks for your feedback to improve this article. Please take a look now and let me know if anything else is needed. Best --Hiperterminal (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hiperterminal, I appreciate your additional work but I'm not certain that the issues have been addressed. The problem isn't that the Finnish Library Association is unreliable per-se, but rather that it is not sufficiently independent of Sipilä. Ideally, we should be able to provide sources that are totally independent, such as newspaper articles, academic papers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I want to understand better your interpretation of independent. I don't know if you noticed back then that this article included a reference to UNESCO and even with that the article was deleted. What happened? And the American Library Association was included as well as reference. In your opinion, is the American Library Association and UNESCO not sufficiently independent of Sipilä? I am happy that the process is over and the article was approved, but I want to understand it because I want to include more librarians as Sipilä. Thank you for your feedback! Best, --Hiperterminal (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiperterminal, the issue is that coverage must be both independent and significant and secondary (per WP:GNG). The UNESCO source here has two issues. One is that it's a primary source document: it's not a report published by UNESCO about libraries (or Sinikka Sipilä), it's a brochure for a conference hosted by UNESCO. It also has almost nothing to say about Sipilä other than that she was there and a brief blurb about her organizational affiliations, which is not significant coverage. It's also not as independent as it could be, given that Sipilä was invited to speak at that conference.

Such a document might be useful to a professional academic researcher or journalist, but it's too incidental for our purposes. On Wikipedia, we can only summarize the information published in reliable, independent sources; anything else is original research. An example of coverage of that conference that would have been usable would have been if a reporter at a professional, reliable newspaper published a writeup of the conference and spent one or more paragraphs specifically talking about Sipilä's contribution. Alternatively, if UNESCO, outside the context of this conference, published a full-length report on libraries in Finland and included several paragraphs+ about Sipilä's work, and Sipilä is not listed as an author of the report, that would also count as significant, independent, secondary coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination of "Roman people"

Hello! I saw you nominated the article Roman people, which I wrote entirely myself, for GA and while I'm pretty happy with how the article is right now (I feel it gets the core stuff across) and the goal, as with most articles, is eventually reaching GA-type quality, I don't think it's quite done yet.

I think the post-476 AD part of the article ("Later history in Western Europe", "Later history in the Eastern Mediterranean" and "As a modern identity") is as done as it'll ever be but the parts about Romans in the Republic and Empire and what being Roman actually means could use more work (they are significantly shorter than the "later history" part even though these periods are what most people today associate "Roman" with and some terms, such as provinciales and peregrini could be explored in more detail). Significantly, the article states that being Roman was to share in Rome's morals, values and ideas, but it doesn't go into detail as to what these morals, values and ideas were.

I'm mostly familiar with the post-476 history, which otherwise often sadly goes unexplored (and I wanted to bring it to light a bit more than usual), which is why the earlier history is a bit brushed over. I was just caught a bit off-guard with the nomination and wanted to clue you in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, thanks for letting me know. Feel free to remove the nomination if you think that the article isn't ready yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed it. I have no idea how much more work is needed on it (as I said, ancient Roman identity isn't something I researched a lot; just enough so that those sections would be moderately expansive) but hopefully that's something that could be added by someone knowledgeable in that area in the future. Still honored that it was nominated by someoene for GA so quickly! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship Amendment Act protests DRN

My problem with that request was that I couldn't figure out who the IP was. They said they'd discussed on the talk page, but certainly not with that IP address. I even asked on the talk page. No explanation forthcoming but another IP added a wall of text. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I didn't even get that far, Dey subrata failing to show up was enough for me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I just found it really weird. Doug Weller talk 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FORRED RfD close

@Rosguill:

While any experienced, uninvolved editor could've closed Wikipedia:FORRED, I was hoping it would be either you (or BDD) for the consideration you give in your determination of the consensus of the discussion, and the level and type(s) of consensus. So, Thank you for the great close. :-)

This seems to be one of those cases, it seems to me, where the shortcut was given little consideration when it was created because even Steel1943 noted that it stands for "FOR REDirect," which in and of itself implies a certain ambiguity. As Tavix and others, including myself, noted, WP:FORRED is a shortcut to an essay on the rationale for "keeping" redirects from foreign languages yet because "redirect" is abbreviated as "RED," it also implies it's a shortcut for RfD deletion criterion #10 for REDlinks. Interestingly, and perhaps paradoxically, keeping the redirects actually keeps the redirect links as bluelinks.

Nevertheless, as Tavix and others noted, deleting this long-used, albeit poorly thought out, redirect poses challenges in terms of the discussion archives, so it's best to keep it—warts and all. Anyway, there was a discussion between Narky Blert, Hog Farm, Shhhhnotsoloud, and myself, or four of the six participants, were all in agreement to both refrain from using WP:FORRED as the shortcut for foreign language redirects and instead use WP:RFFL or WP:RFOREIGN going forward and to removing it from the shortcut menu at the Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages essay, I was wondering if you would consider that sufficient consensus to removing it from that essay? Tavix did not explicitly endorse removing it from the essay, but wasn't opposed to it, either. Moreover, he has long since not endorsed that redirect as a redirect to the essay on foreign language redirects, so I suspect he wouldn't mind if it were removed. WP:FORRED can still be used, going forward, but by removing it from the essay, we would be saying, "preferably, use either of these two great shortcuts to reference this essay."

What do you think?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 00:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, honestly I overlooked that detail of the discussion. I'll go ahead an implement it now _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, No problem at all. Thanks for your prompt response! I think that will be a great outcome that satisfices everyone. Doug Mehus T·C 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WWPI-LD

This is a new station; it should have at least some notability (FCC filings, press releases, etc.). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, FCC filings and press releases are not examples of secondary coverage and thus don't count toward notability. Moreover, if just being a new station was enough to meet notability guidelines, then every station would be notable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)