User talk:Rosguill

Removed my page

Hi Rosguill, you removed a page I posted on Robin Kang saying I had a conflict of interest and to label on my page whether or not I was paid to do this. As it says on my user page, I am a professor teaching students on how to add more women artists to Wikipedia and my Robin Kang page was used as an example (I did it for free). Not sure how to get it remedied - but appreciate any advice. - JesiBuell — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesiBuell (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

JesiBuell, is your course registered with the Wikipedia Education Program? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not. I've gone through Wikipedia Ambassador training but it seems things have changed since then. The students have all completed their pages/edits. Is there a way to retroactively "register"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesiBuell (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

JesiBuell, could you identify who the students are? I'm concerned that you may not have the necessary level of experience editing Wikipedia to be able to effectively teach a course. You've made less than 50 edits thus far, and of the two articles that you've written from scratch, neither clearly meets notability guidelines and one of them, Draft talk:KERNPUNKT Press appears to be a clear conflict of interest. You also seem to be under the impression that new discussion sections are added at the top of a talk page, as opposed to be bottom; a minor issue, but it suggests a quite limited knowledge of how our community operates. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Just want to say thanks and the diff comment had me laughing. I probably should have let it go but had a bad day today. Straw met camel’s back. OyMosby (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, haha, I was a little worried that the edit summary may have pushed a bit too far. Glad you appreciated it. As for the concern you noted about whether admins are paying attention to Balkan-related disruption, there's really nothing new under the sun. As I'm sure you know, it's one of the more contentious subjects on Wikipedia, so I hope you'll forgive me and other admins if we focus on addressing it primarily when specific disruptive behavior is brought to our attention, rather than proactively scouring the edit histories of every editor that may have pushed a POV on the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries I am aware that admins are doing all they can and are pressed for time and resources. So I know that some cases just slip through. My concern is the potential sockpuppeting that was happening in the main page edits. Also I agree with the edit for the main page. Just that I reincorporated the image into the body were it was before. Hopefully the talk page can be put to rest as it seems all agree on the anti-Communist poster. Take care and thanks!OyMosby (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Seems the other user is moving my input about the anti-Communist poster into the “off-topic” section you made. I moved it back but if they do it again what recourse do I have with further persona harassment by them? They replied with another screed to me off topic. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, I'll keep an eye out and try to step in if it happens again. I'd suggest you stay out of it at this point, as that way it will be easier to deescalate. If over a day goes by without me doing anything, feel free to ping me again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had made a final comment there. But will stay out from now as me responding likely won’t solve anything. Probably better I don't read their replies. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, I will say that you may be able to put a swift end to this by voluntarily refactoring your own comment so that we can keep the relevant parts in the discussion and move the foruming under the hat. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: you mentioned to ping you if they are at it again. Well the user Ztoni998 continues their wiki abuse and blatantly mislead in their diff saying “90% of my comment is off topic and claims only THEIR comments were placed in a separate section which is false and then proceed to move their massive essay that has nothing to do with the topic at hand by merging their discussion about the propaganda posters to their rant against me. Manipulating the text to make it seem like their response is about the talk topic even though they made it before I commented. Clear manipulation and misrepresentation. This is clear disruption and wish for last say. Otherwise why would they suddenly merge two different comments of theirs? I never called them by name in the first place. There were a number of new accounts and IPs removing sourced content from the article. My side commentary is not most of my comment nor going at anyone personally, but I did counter an argument put forth on the page many times. Could you please warn them to cease this nonsense drama? I stoped arguing with them and let them have the last word But they keep tampering with existing comments and the isolation war section you put in.

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

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

I know you may see this as a minisucle matter not worth getting worked up by but we shouldn’t enable this. They will do this again with others. If you could please warn them maybe they will listen. Lord knows the Balkan curse is real on Wikipedia haha as you know. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, please just let this go. Their most recent edits (which were from several weeks ago) didn't touch your comment at all. The diffs you're providing here are from more than a month ago. I can guarantee that nobody else watching that page is even reading anything the two of you are saying anymore. Right now nobody has crossed the line to something that would merit real sanctions, and issuing warnings will only inflame the situation. I'm sure the situation is unpleasant for you, but it's nothing compared to the amount of drama and mudslinging that will occur if this gets escalated to an administrative issue.

As a separate note, while it is valid to come to me or other admins for advice or to take action on a super obvious violation of editing norms (e.g. legal threats, absurd amounts of edit warring, blatant vandalism or slur slinging), these kinds of minor civility issues are not ones that I can take action on when you raise them on my talk page because it can give the impression that I am playing favorites (and from a structural perspective, I would be: you've gotten to plead your case across multiple paragraphs here, and chatted me up on other topics as well. Ztoni hasn't said anything to me). If you really have an issue, take it to ANI where it can get a fairer hearing. Or alternatively, talk to Ztoni directly and try to reach some mutual understanding of deescalation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My point is they are misleading by taking two of their separate entries, one at me the other actually about the article to dance around the War Talk filter you set up. But you are right. Just gets on my nerves when people like them like to always have it there way. And I’m likely first of yet deal with said user. I’ll just move on then. As annoyed I am with their behavior. And essentially ignoring you and doing what they like. Take care. I’ll stop pestering you with this drama. I definitely would take this to ANI and waste more of anyone’s time. Thanks for once again getting me to see clear instead of red Rosguill. I envy your coo patience. ;) OyMosby (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Asking

What i needed to become New page reviewer --VETTI PAIYAN-(talk) 10:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Vettipaiyan, there's a minimum requirement of 500 edits to mainspace and at least 90 days of age on the account. However, it's probably better to understand that minimum as a minimum to have your request reviewed, not as a minimum for actually conferring the permissions. New page reviewers are expected to have a strong understanding of a wide range of policies and guidelines, particularly notability, original research, neutrality, copyright and BLPs, as well as being familiar with standard article creation and deletion procedures. This knowledge can be demonstrated by a track record of thoughtful participation at WP:AfD, successful speedy-deletion and WP:PROD tagging, article creations, or ideally a combination of all three. For editors who have the right attitude and mentality, but don't quite have the skills yet, we also offer the WP:NPPSCHOOL to learn the ropes with a tutor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank You --VETTI PAIYAN-(talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pestminster, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Artophorion, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, I found references calling that scandal Pestminster online, and Artophorion is mentioned halfway down the page of the other. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had reviewed them, and then unreviewed my own review. Didn't realize I had already done that and then you reviewed them in the interim. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please desist from offensive name calling

I may be autistic but that is no reason to call me offensive names on talk-pages. I am not interested in sourcing some policy breach by you, but ask you please desist from calling me "daft"[1], call my judgement "absurd" [2] or tell me to "Get off your high horse"[3]. The fact that you are much more knowledgeable than I about policy here means there is absolutely zero need for you to use offensive names to get your way. Thank you in advance. You have made the inference that I am an idiot who doesn’t know how to edit on WP - this is hurtful and I will take that forward as self-doubt. CatCafe (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, quite frankly, given your repeated accusations that I have engaged in disruptive editing when I have done nothing of the sort and the multiple times that you have claimed that I intended the exact opposite of what I had written, even after I explicitly stated my position, it's you who owe me an apology. But ultimately we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to swap pleasantries; if you can engage in civil discussion in order to sort out our disagreements about article content, I'll more than happily return the favor. I do still think that at this point WP:DRN may be a more useful way to make progress towards working out our primary remaining disagreement, which I believe is about the question of whether to include the Toronto Star column as a source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I never asked for your apology, so please don't infer I want one. If you can't move forward without committing to not using derogatory name calling then so be it - that's all I asked for as doing such would show maturity. As you have now said "it's you who owe me an apology", then I sincerely offer one, as your feelings must be hurt. I apologise. CatCafe (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, I already said that I would engage in civil discussion. If you want to dispute any of our open disagreements further, start a thread at DRN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's great that you are committed to refrain from calling other editors derogatory names. And what would also be appreciated is you finding a bunch of good secondary sources for the Yasmine Mohammed page so the 'prim source' tag can be removed. Not forgetting that it you put the tag up then deleted a bunch of secondary sources you didn't agree with to further compound the need for more sources on the page . Adding those secondary's and removing the tag would be seen as good faith on your part and improve the encyclopaedia. I'm no longer working on the page. Regards, CatCafe (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the underlying problem. The overreliance on primary sources isn't something I determined by counting up the secondary sources in the article as compared to the number of primary sources, it was due to large swathes of the article with significant, contentious claims relying solely on primary sources. Moreover, the sources I removed, while some were secondary with respect to their main topics, were not secondary with respect to Mohammed (with the exception of The Post Millennial, which is unfortunately unreliable (RSP entry) and thus cannot be used to support BLP content). My edits in no way moved the article further away from addressing its primary source problem. Adding more sources to support the already well-supported claims doesn't help anything, it's actually a form of WP:REFBOMBING and is generally considered to make things worse as it can impede verifiability. I went through several pages of Google search results just now and couldn't find any additional secondary coverage other than some book reviews, which don't help support the claims about Mohammed's early life which are the crux of the issue. And finally, ensuring that articles are neutral, verifiable, and BLP-compliant is improving the encyclopedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

NPP Question

Hey Rosguill, while patroling I have come through this article Squad (2020 film) and seen that you have marked it as Undisclosed paid. Is there anything in the backend you find it which leads to the same? What is the best way to approach as a patroller in this case? - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The course of action depends a bit on what the situation is. In this case, the editor didn't have any warnings on their talk page, so I placed {{uw-paid1}}. The article itself seemed borderline for notability so I left it at that; I generally avoid nominating articles for deletion (or doing preliminary steps like BEFORE) when I've already taken disciplinary steps that could be misinterpreted as an attempt to sabotage the article (removing giant swathes of copyvio also falls in this category) unless I'm extremely confident that it is not notable or that the article needs to be deleted for some other reason. If the editor has already been previously warned, reporting them to WP:COIN is the appropriate next step (although if it was long ago or about a seemingly unconnected topic it may be better to start fresh). If the article is about a potentially-notable subject, is refbombed, or is otherwise difficult to review while also having COI issues, I'll usually send it to draftspace and replace the standard "unsourced" message with one of the messages from User:Rosguill/Draftify templates. I generally avoid doing this if the article has already been moved out of draftspace, as this generally causes an unproductive edit war. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I guess I have to consider borderline notability subjects in a different way from now on. I was more into AfD and CSD with suspicious articles. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, CSD G11 is only appropriate if either the article is blatantly promotional in its content or in some rare cases if it's been repeatedly resubmitted after there's a consensus for it not being notable. As far as AfD is concerned, there's no rule against you taking an article to AfD if you think it's not notable, I just personally try to avoid going after an article in multiple channels at once because it can cause the other editor to get more defensive and uncivil. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New pages patrol training

Hi, I'm approaching you to ask whether you'd be willing to give me some training on New Page Patrolling. I enjoyed the process of going through the CVUA training under Girth Summit, and I learned a huge amount about how things worked here, so I'm now thinking about branching our and finding additional ways to support the project. I was requested to Barkeep49 for this training, but unfortunately (s)he don't have time at the moment to take a new student. I also have served as a NPR for 3 months from 27 October 2019 to 27 January 2020, you also could check my Patrol and Page Curation logs. After, if you feel that training is not necessary then with your suggestion I could work on this. Thank you very much in advance for your time. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

ZI Jony, was there a particular reason you didn't reapply for the permission following the end of the trial run (or did I miss the reapplication in your edit history)? Looking at your AfD record and the last few reviews you did, you would probably have the permission conferred if you asked for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, actually I'm working several projects, and I was unable to full focus on that time. Assign user rights are completely depend on admin, if you could conform the permission I'll be happy for that, and I'll get back to you if any help needed. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

ZI Jony, I'll do a full check soon and get back to you on that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

ZI Jony, alright, I went through your contributions and I think you've done a good enough job to have the permission conferred indefinitely. The one thing that I think you should pay a bit more attention to going forward is to remember to tag articles that have issues. 34th Golden Disc Awards and Cross My Heart and Hope to Die (film) stand a good chance of being notable, but they're short on citations and should thus be marked with either {{refimprove}} or {{notability}}. Super-short articles should be marked with stub tags (User:SD0001/StubSorter is a useful script for that), and articles with bare-url citations should be marked with {{Cleanup bare urls}}. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thank you for your trust and suggestion. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

NPP school

I have gone through topics like notability guidelines, speedy deletion and others in which i also have passion and interest in this NPP. Please i would like to be a student in NPP/S. I can't work with other due to they are not near my timezone. Tbiw (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Tbiw, from looking through your recent contributions, I'm seeing a lot of articles that have significant issues with notability, including articles that you've been working on as recently as a few weeks ago. I think it would be premature to do NPP tutoring at this time. Try building up experience by observing (and eventually participating in) AfD discussions, or see if someone listed at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is willing to tutor you in article creation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

New set of eyes

Hi. Hate to bug you, but would you mind taking a look at User:I'm Aya Syameimaru! contributions? They seem to have created a bunch of redirects, but the target pages don't mention the redirect subject. I was going through their work, and nominated 4 I came across for deletion, but there were others which were okay. But the remaining 20 or so don't appear to mention the redirect subject. And sorry I missed the teleconference today, seems to have gone well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, looking through the redirects, while there's no mention at the target articles, they all appear to be nominally correct in that the Gridino is a village in Nizhny-Novgorodsky Oblast, cut&paste is an electronic music subgenre, etc. I honestly never feel like I know what to do in cases like this, and usually decide whether or not to nominate for RfD based on the likelihood of the search term obscuring some other subject.

As for the group editing session, I barely made it myself, I think Barkeep was holding down the fort for most of it. People seemed pretty happy with how it went. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. At RDF, the usual criteria is that it be mentioned in the target. But I feel like you do, these are probably correct, but no mention. Maybe a note on the editor's talkpage asking him to add it in somewhere on the target?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

AirDee

Hi, I have noted your discussion to delete a page regarding non-performing personnel due to notability and the sources being from interviews. Please note there is by default limited coverage with producers especially in the South African music scene as they are often in the background but the subject of the article is a prominent figure but the credit ostensibly goes to the artists he produces for.

Thank you Pen Bull (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Replied at the AfD discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect review for 🍜

An editor has asked for a redirect review of 🍜. Because you closed the redirect discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the redirect review. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Doubt

Hello, Let me ask you a question, there are two Indian models by one name. One is from Bangalore and one is from Kerala. The model is an actress and model from Kerala. Then how to add extension name.--Chennai Passangai (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Chennai Passangai, I assume that you're asking about disambiguators? Usually disambiguations for people go first by profession, then by name, so in this case you'd have Person's Name (born 19XX) and Person's Name (born 19XY). If they've only done work at the state-level then it may be appropriate to disambiguate as (Bangalore model) and (Kerala model), but if they're known for any work at all outside their home state this scheme will probably be more confusing than helpful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Neil Crud

Hi Rosguill - you've redirected this page i've edited to Sons of Selina, stating sources are not good enough - please can you look into it, or un-redirect it - or let me know what needs to be done as I have other related info to add to other pages that the Redirect kind of doesn't bear direct relevance to? - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Hunter4 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Hunter4, the standard for whether to create an article is explained at WP:GNG: you need multiple citations to significant independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As of when I redirected it, the article was overwhelmingly reliant on citations to link2wales (not independent of Crud), with the only other sources being a Wikipedia mirror (not reliable), a Discogs database entry (not secondary or significant), a BBC article that doesn't mention Crud specifically (not significant), and a self-published database entry (not reliable, not significant, not secondary). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

OK I hear what you're saying - are you suggesting he doesn't exist? - I don't think the Redirect to his band is relevant enough to the work he has done since... Maybe we should delete the link altogether, or do you suggest we seek other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Hunter4 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Hunter4, if you think that the redirect is more confusing than helpful, then nominating it for WP:RfD is the way to go. Redirecting not-quite-notable people to associated groups is pretty standard practice, but if he's equally well known for various multiple things (and especially if information about him is spread across multiple articles) then deleting the redirect may be preferable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Steve Forward?

Hello Rosguil! I don’t understand why Steve Forward’s wiki is considered for deletion. Could it be a mistake? EricaSims (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

EricaSims, you can read my explanation of why I nominated the article for deletion at its deletion discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just read it and I don’t share your vision. Maybe the page needs some correction but seems totally legit to me and not commercial in anyway EricaSims (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

EricaSims, then make a comment at the deletion discussion. The issue isn't that it's promotional, however, but that it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd suggest that you should review the notability guidelines before commenting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I just dug on his last interviews. In a French article. everything seems to correspond except that it is not a guitarist session but a sound engineer it should be modified EricaSims (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Interviews are generally not considered to be independent coverage unless they're part of a longform piece. Moreover, multiple examples of significant coverage in secondary sources are generally required. If you squint you can maybe consider one or two to count, but I think it falls short. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with Sayyid Asghar Hussain Deobandi

Hii, I was adding references to one of the articles I created and when I checked it says someone else created it in the page information. this diff shows that when I moved it from sandbox to draft, and earlier edits of that particular sandbox are different, and not related to the subject. Can you help me with erasing that earlier history until this move? The same issue is with some other articles which I started editing in the sandbox and then made a move. Hope I get help. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, my understanding is that while you it's possible to add histories from other pages, deleting them is not something we do. Technically WP:REVDEL exists, but that's supposed to just be for significant violations of Wikipedia's policies, not just housekeeping. I wouldn't worry about it, although if you want to avoid it proactively, stick to starting articles in Draft space instead of Sandbox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing problems with Abrogation in Public Law

You have quite rightly identified sourcing issues with this article. I am aware that the sources are not the best fit generally, and that what is really needed is a concrete definition for this particular meaning of the word "Abrogation". Having said that, I really do believe something is needed to address this gap in the usage of this term. I searched high and low for something close to this meaning and read all the other pages the led from the disambiguation page for Abrogation. Perhaps the page should have been called "Abrogation in law", so a more general approach could have been taken? There again, the usage which I had come across appeared to be mainly in the realm of UK Public Law, so this is the main reason why the page name was chosen. I can appreciate why you think that the article is too dependent on primary sources, due to the link with the judicial review R (March) v Secretary of State for Health in which I was the claimant. This is why I thought there would be a CoI. Technically, none of the sources cited are "primary" as I have not directly authored any of them. The two weak sources are ref. 9 (the claim form for Michelmores, LLP (18 August 2009) and ref. 10 (Defendant's Summary Grounds of Defence). They were authored by solicitors of the respective legal teams for the opposing sides of the above-mentioned judicial review. The main flaw with these sources is that they are not available online for verification. Is there a way I can upload them somewhere to make them available in a way that would help create reliable sources? References 9 and 10 are very good examples of this precise use of the word "abrogation" in the field, as it were. What this page really needs is some input from some solid legal authorities, perhaps from law texts dealing with Constitutional Law and Public Law. I've addressed the issue of original research that you identified in the unsourced passage of text under Abrogation in public law#Constitutionality (para 2, third sentence), and I have now sourced it with a more specific reference to McWhirter & Anor and added a quotation within the reference. The reason this unsourced section happened is I simply forgot to source it because I was so focussed on trying to reword the source material so as not to render a direct quotation in the body of the article. I hope that some editors with legal experience will help develop the page in the future. Thank you for reviewing the article.SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

SpookiePuppy, uploading sources isn't necessary; if I was skeptical about specific claims I might ask you to email me a scan or transcribe key portions, but that isn't the issue here. I appreciate the work you're doing, but I do want to clarify that I think you're misunderstanding what a primary source is on Wikipedia. For a legal concept like abrogation, more important than authorship is how the sources use or analyze the term. Examples that use "abrogation" in the field are still primary sources with respect to the concept of abrogation, as they are utilizing the concept rather than providing commentary about it--I think that the only types of coverage that would be truly secondary would be papers analyzing the use or history of the term (textbooks and dictionaries, although tertiary, would also be preferable to primary sources, see more at WP:PRIMARY).

On another note, in the future, comments like this should be made on the relevant article's talk page (you can ping me we {{ping|Rosguill}} to make sure it doesn't escape my notice) so that other editors that come across the article can benefit from any comments we might make. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thank you Zindor (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Zindor, I think your hunches are correct, but the bigger concern for that article is that it looks like the episode summaries are all copyright violations. The content at List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes appears to be as well. It's not totally impossible that it's copied from Wikipedia given how old the article is, but the content looks like professional episode summaries to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, i should have noticed it. I spoke on my talk page earlier with the creator of the article, they were just good-faith topic-splitting. I'll have a chat with them later today about this. I'm thinking the solution is to do a paraphrasing marathon on all the content, merge the Series 1&3 article content back into 'List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes', then redirect the blank articles to that target. Thanks Zindor (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So i reworded the content in the Series 3 article, which is now in draft space, to the point where it was no longer copvio. I've now realised that the origin of the content, the tvdb website, is user-generated and i've been paraphrasing utter trash all evening. New plan is get consensus for a redirect of Tracy Beaker Returns (series 1) at Afd, remove all copyvio from List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes leaving behind a skeleton of Series 2, and add a reliably sourced skeleton table of the Series 3 episodes. Thoughts? Is there an easier way out this nukable mess that i keep digging myself further into? Zindor (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Zindor, are you sure it's user-generated? If so, then it may actually have been a Wikipedia mirror. To my eye they looked like summaries that were lifted from the official descriptions published by a show.

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

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

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

Greetings

The revert on Short Films by Louis C.K. is unwarranted and disgusting vandalism, please stop!! Or I will report you!! IT HAS ENOUGH CREDIBILITY TO EXIST AND HAS ENOUGH SOURCES!! Thank you!!

Sjur03, I haven't reverted you even once there. I objected to the article's creation because the sourcing didn't meet WP:GNG. At this point two other experienced new page reviewers have done the same. I'd suggest that you stop edit warring and start looking for sources that would actually establish the subject's notability, or else you may be facing a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sjur03, shouting at Rosguill or threatening them isn't going to land credibility to any of your claims so cool off. Celestina007 16:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixing it.

9rush removed on Wikipedia. Logan Tamai-Newton (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Starting from tomorrow!

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

Hi Rosguill, I'd like you to be aware that this editor is apparently good faith, enthusiastic and highly prolific but evidently bluntly applying mass changes to articles without scrutinising or understanding the changes suggested by the tool. They have neither desisted nor reverted their work, as requested by myself and another editor. I've made a slight dent in reverting these manually but is there a means to do a mass rollback of their edits to date? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker, my impression from reading through the additional discussion that has occurred since you left me this message is that the situation is more under control now? I'm not aware of any mass-rollback options (but this isn't a field of editing that I would have much experience with). My hunch, however, would be that if any such tools exist, they would only be usable either with the consent of the affected editor, or as part of a decision at ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, since my earlier post, Angus has been convinced to carry out some reversions of his own edits. I haven't had a chance to check if everything has been addressed but we are certainly in a better place than we were. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986, I don't have time to respond to all these questions right now; you may find that you'll be able to get quicker answers at the teahouse. Touching briefly on what Mutt Lunker brought up, it looks to me like you may just be rushing through things bit too quickly. Try slowing down and proofreading your edits more carefully before you publish them, both in articles and on talk pages. I'm happy to continue instructing you in NPPSCHOOL, but you need to be aware that new page reviewers are expected to be patient and thorough; failure to uphold that standard generally ends with permissions getting revoked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I will be patient and thorough this time. Had a good lesson, will take it as a learning curve. :) Angus1986 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, I have restarted with NPPschool, will wait for more assignments from you(whenever you get free time). Thank you! Angus1986 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, hope you are doing well. :) Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 12:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Moses Olufemi

Hi Rosguill, The above article is not a paid article or a promotional article. I did not receive any compensations for my edits. This is not the only edits I have made. I wonder why they keep telling me the sources aren't reliable. These same sources are used in other accepted wikipedia pages. They are magazines websites, news websites, official websites. They are not just blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdeditorr (talk • contribs) 17:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Abcdeditorr, I'm more concerned by the blatantly non-neutral writing in the article, as well as your insistence on sidestepping our article review procedures rather than heeding other editors' comments. Regarding the sources, after glancing through them quickly I think that irrespective of the source's reliability, they for the most part don't contain significant coverage of the subject, name dropping him but providing little additional information. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

If that is the problem, I am sorry about that. I have tried my best and I have given a reason why the page should not be deleted and if you think the page should be deleted, I suggest to return it back to draft. I didn't start the page, I only modified it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdeditorr (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Abcdeditorr, ok, I've moved it back to draftspace. I'm willing to take you at your word that you're not engaging in paid editing, but please be more careful to comply with both our content policies and our review procedures going forward. If you can't find additional coverage of Olufemi, it's possible that it's just WP:TOOSOON for an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Alright, thanks for your hard work and diligence. We will keep improving Wikipedia. But can you please tell me more about WP:TOOSOON I'd like to hear from you.

Abcdeditorr, you could read through the link I provided yourself, but the essence is that in cases where subjects have done work which could potentially generate significant coverage, but no such coverage exists yet, it's possibly TOOSOON: we shouldn't create the article until more coverage is available. Also, please remember to sign your messages with four tildes like so ~~~~ . _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill But what can you say about an article that was moved to namespace and immediately indexed to search engines. The article Draft:Moses Olufemi was indexed to search engines immediately it was move to namespace and that gave me a surprised. And I later noticed it was moved back to draft. The subject has a knowledge panel on google and yahoo search but it has no about for the subject and that was why I decided to create a Wikipedia page for him. Well, right now, the Wikipedia page is still on search engines but it is an error page since the page got deleted. To clear my doubts, why was it indexed on search engines at first?

Thank you. Abcdeditorr (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Nomination of Public Art in Public Places for deletion

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

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

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

Nomination of Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) for deletion

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

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

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

Draft:Donald trump

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

Nomination of Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) for deletion

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

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

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

problematic auto-patrolled creation

Hi. I hope you are doing well. Just a few minutes ago, I came across a little bit of problematic article, 55th Munich Security Conference, which was created by an auto-patrolled editor (noping) Kiwipete. I didn't look through their talkpage, or other edits; I went through only new creations. They are a long term editor, and acting in good faith. There are no issues with notability, or UPE. But there page creations definitely need a second look. They still go through AfC, but I think they also create new articles directly. The first article that I had come across was sort of well sourced, but it didn't have "reference" section, nor {reflist}, nor any categories. It didn't have talkpage either. I didn't want to discourage them, so I haven't communicated with them yet. Also, they hadn't asked for the flag, an admin gave it to them based on the bot generated list. What do you think, what should be done? Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, I don't know that any admin action is necessary at this time, given both the relatively minor nature of most of the issues you've identified, as well as the fact that these are quite recent article creations (for all we know, they maybe would have gotten around to it later this week, they literally haven't made any edits since spinning off the Munich Security Conference articles yesterday). I think it would be more appropriate to reach out to them and remind them that since they're autopatrolled, they should take care to assign categories (or {{improve categories}}) and do other minor cleanup. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats what I meant. I didn't mean to say any "action", its just, I am not sure how to approach them. I am still feeling somewhat bad about this communication which took place couples of hours ago. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, was that the diff you meant to add? I don't see anything to feel bad about there (and the recipient doesn't even seem to have responded yet). At any rate, I think a similar message to that would be fine in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs)

That was the correct diff. I don't know why, but I felt sort of bad/guilty after posting that message. I am getting sort of overcautious these days I think. A few days ago, I had to ask Diannaa (special:permalink/975713620#photos not uploaders own work). But you are right, we should let them know in plain, and polite wordings to create the articles in userspace or draftspace, and then move them in mainspace once everything has been done. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Heroes (band)

Hi, I saw your close here, and was disappointed that the conversation relied so heavily on current status rather than logic or user service. You noted that the question can be revisited if the current status changes. If I add content about Darren Costin's Heroes to the Wang Chung page, may I add it to the dab and retarget, or would you request a second discussion? Chubbles (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Chubbles, no need for a new discussion, just treat it as a bold edit if someone objects (I doubt they will). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

OK Thanks Chubbles (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work at NPP! You're literally the most prolific human NPP contributor (Danny's bot takes 1st place, but it's a bot). Cheers and keep up the good work! ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 05:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Rock 'N' Roll Rumble Tour

Hi. Can you have a look at Rock 'N' Roll Rumble Tour, there is a user is intent on an edit war after changes initially by you and later by Onel5969 and myself. Thanks --John B123 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Petrol

Hy, Since you rejected my request for New Page reviewer (for good reasons obviously), I want you to petrol these articles. Jeera Blade, Noori Natt. Real Mishi Dar (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Real Mishi Dar, I don't do page reviews on request, wait for their turn in the queue. Also, new page reviewers are not allowed to review their own articles, so you not having been granted your request has no bearing on this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Kewaskum Statesman News Journal

Hi Rosguill,

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

In both cases, they were published on September 8th 2020. I did not conduct additional tests to verify whether or not every slightly notable company mentioned on Wikipedia has also been mentioned there, but I would assume they are. Either way - I suggest blacklisting them from serving as a source. Best, Pratat (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Pratat, thanks for looking into this, but the place to raise concerns about sources is at WP:RSN. I'd also note that unless the Kewaskum Statesman is being actively cited on Wikipedia articles, there isn't really much of a need to blacklist the source, a response that's reserved for repeated spam. Given that the website provides zero information about the publication itself, it's pretty clearly unreliable even before we consider the odd shadowing of Wikipedia articles that you noticed, and thus unlikely to be used as it is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who spinoff companions

Hi Rosguill, thanks for checking out those Dr Who spinoff companion pages that were redirected. Some of them don't have adequate sources right now, but I think that sources exist. If you want to challenge their notability, do you think they should go to AfD? I'm not sure what the best step is here. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Toughpigs, honestly I'm inclined to agree that sources probably exist for many of them. Searching on Google, I see that most of them draw quite a few mentions from Dr Who-oriented media, some of which may be reliable. I think it's ok to leave them be with the {{notability}} tags on. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've got some books about Doctor Who spinoff media, I'll get some references on the pages a little later. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Toughpigs, as for the others, I think that converting them to redirects is the easiest solution. Given that they're totally unsourced, any argument for keeping would be dependent on finding additional sources (rather than arguing that existing sources are sufficient), so I think it would save everyone a headache to just have them be redirects until someone can find the time to look for sources. If you (or someone else) puts in the effort to find sources and it's still borderline for notability, then AfD may be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll add references to the ones that I can; I'll ping you if that involves undoing redirects. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Help

Hello @Rosguill: as you declined my request comments, along with some motivation that I should work on these fields such as page moving, CSD,PROD, or deletion. But I'm quite confused, will you help me elaborate from where should I start. Thanks, please assist me. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

C1K98V, I'd start by carefully reading our WP:Deletion policy. If you think you understand it, go to WP:AfD, read the additional instructions there, and then try participating in some of the discussions listed at the daily log links. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Contribution Help

Hello @Rosguill: as Nomination of Hindrise (NGO) for deletion by Looplips (talk). Speedy deletion nomination of Hindrise (NGO) by JavaHurricane (talk), I don't now why he did it, they don't want to make someone page contributor. this page is not about any promotions and not violated or copyrights. some motivation that I should work on these fields such as page moving or creation, deletion. But I'm quite confused, will you help me elaborate from where should I start. How can i improve myself? Thanks, please assist me. Monukhan13 15:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Monukhan13, I'm not sure what Looplips was thinking because they didn't write a nomination statement, but I think JavaHurricane is right that the article reads as very promotional. Article writing is hard, especially if English is not your first language. I would suggest focusing on tasks that don't require as much prose writing, such as adding WP:Categories or hunting for citations for undersourced articles. I'd suggest that you take a look at the WP:Task Center and try working on some of the tasks that are listed as "suitable for all editors" to see what you like. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Ante Pavlic Talk

For the consensus, it seems 8 are in fine with Yugoslavian Croat, 1 Prefers just Yugoslavian without the Croat ethnic mention (though we can ask them their input in this) and 8 are in objection and want Croatian or Croat to be the chosen element. So it would seem Yugoslavian Croat has enough support and argumentation to stay then? Especially since the newest participant voted 2 months later when the RfC should have been closed? Had it not been for them the consensus would support the move. This doesn’t seem right. Why not keep it open another two months then? Especially as we see voters from other Language Wikipedias possibly canvasing that occurred with no biters seeming to repeat each other. There wasn’t really any vandalism for “Yugoslavian Croat” so the reasoning for that “no” vote makes little sense. Also, the RfC was to change the article from “Yugoslavian Croat” to “Croatian” so if there is “no consensus” in the RfC why was “Croatian” chosen? It was stable for many months as “Yugoslavian Croat” as per edit history shows. I’d ask you to please take a closer look. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, I'm going to stand by my assessment. The voting was close enough that the end result was no consensus in the absence of arguments that decidedly refute one side or the other, even if we ignore the late vote. Some of the votes were a bit repetitive, but given that their arguments weren't decisively refuted that's not a reason to discount them. If you want to throw out votes due to canvassing, you're going to need to present a stronger case that canvassing occurred. Editors' unwillingness to tendentiously impose their own interpretations of the discussion while waiting for a close can't be taken as evidence in favor of the non-status-quo result (and there actually was some edit warring between you and another editor over this). As for what the prior status quo was, I was going off of this, a version that appears to have stood for years before this dispute began. The Yugoslav version was reinstated by an editor in April despite the lack of consensus on the talk page.

It may be worth mentioning that after completing the close, I got curious and decided to do a search of RS to see how they referred to Pavelic, and came back with a handful of examples for Croat and Croatian, and none for Yugoslavian. This had no bearing on my close as it wasn't an argument presented in the discussion, but if the discussion were to be reopened I think that there is a clear-cut, policy-backed case against calling him Yugoslavian in the lead and infobox. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I appreciate taking a second look and I will need to look at the sources as you mentioned. But the votes seem 8 for Croatian and 9 against Croatian and for Yugoslavian. Shouldn’t that be decisive if you aren’t taking RS findings into consideration? OyMosby (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, no, we operate on a consensus basis which does not mean a simple majority vote wins. That small of a vote difference isn't enough in the absence of decisive arguments.

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

• [4] Ante Pavelić was a Croat from Bosnia-Herzegovina
• [5] showed up as a result for "Ante Pavelić was a Croatian", wasn't able to access the text
• [6] Croat nationalist Ante Pavelić, and later Ante Pavelićwas a Croatian nationalist
• [7] the exiled Croatian Ante Pavelić
• [8] ...among them the Croatian Ante Pavelić
• [9] Men like the Croatian Ante Pavelić
• [10] A somewhat similar adventure lived the Croatian Ante Pavelic
• [11]Among the better-known were the Croatian Ante Pavelic
• [12] the most infamous Hercegovin Croat, Ante Pavelic
• [13] such as the Croat Ante Pavelic
• [14] the Croat Ante Pavelic
• [15] were Croat Ante Pavelić
• [16] led by Croat Ante Pavelić

I'm honestly quite surprised that the anti-Yugoslav camp didn't produce these examples themselves. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Antifa (United States)

Thank you for your closure here. You wrote there is no consensus on [political position], so I was wondering if it would be fine to remove left-wing from the first sentence as we already mention it later on by stating Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism which gives more context and in my view is a compromise in that the label is used as those in favour wanted, but it is put in the proper context and not as the very first sentence as those opposed argued. Or perhaps simply reword it from left-wing, anti-fascist to anti-fascist and left-wing to avoid the awkward comma. Let me know what you think and thanks in advance. Davide King (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, given that it involves a different phrasing from what was at issue in the discussion, I think that it would be ok to treat this as a bold edit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, after your reply here, Davide King removed it with no explanation, I reverted this, and now Davide King has removed it again after pointing to his post on your talk page. I note he came very close to violating the page's 1RR, removing it twice in 25 hours. Rosguill, your closure still stands and should not be changed based on one editor's pushing, and I note that you here call Davide King's proposal a "bold edit", seemingly referencing WP:BRD. But we are already past the B and the R, and the D frankly was the RfC which we should not have to waste time relitigating. Davide King alone does not get to unilaterally override your clear decision based on the fact that most other editors at the RfC specifically wanted Antifa's position on the political spectrum to be in the lead sentence, regardless of what he personally thinks about how the rest of the lead covers it (and he was heavily involved in the discussion, so he was heard already). If Davide King will not self-revert, I have to insist that Rosguill enforce the closure of the RfC by reinstating the text. If that does not work, then I have no choice left but to go to WP:ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I self-reverted already as soon as you raised the issue and it is fine. However, if you are consistent, you ought to remove the mention of militancy (as it wikilinks to the same thing) and the sentence mentioning far-left and militant (which I have added) as there is no consensus for either, per the closure. As noted by Rosquil in the closure itself, "the lead has since been fleshed out to provide a more detailed description of Antifa's tactics, militant and otherwise." I believe my compromise is a better solution for both those who were for inclusion and those who were for exclusion from the lead. Davide King (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, Crossroads, clearly there's still disagreement so we should go back to the revision I imposed with the close, and discuss Davide King's proposed changes further if they want to pursue them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I just did revert to that. Per closure, left-wing in the lead, but not far-left and militant which I boldly added myself to the lead before the closure. Just to note, no one reverted my proposed compromise version other than Crossroads complaining my removal of the awkward left-wing, anti-fascist wording today. By the way, I did not remove left-wing from the lead; it is still there and has always been there. It is simply put in proper context as being the [left-wing] ideologies antifa members tend to subscribe to, so I thought my edit was fine since I did not actually remove any mention of left-wing from the lead. I noticed only now Rosquill stated first sentence. Still, no one reverted or complained about my other proposal. Crossroads did not complain about me adding far-left and militant to the lead, perhaps because they supported the addition in the RfC, despite the fact the closure was clear that there is no consensus to add either. My bad, although I was trying to be bold and it seemed to be fine until today. If a discussion is needed, then so be it. Davide King (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, instead of reverting to the version you imposed with the close, Davide King has now decided unilaterally to remove some other portion of the lead as a "compromise", because he added it several weeks ago. Is this proper? I think not. Discussion has begun here. I believe that edit should be reverted to match the version imposed by your close. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on the article talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding username change

Dear Rosguill, I have changed my username to AngusMEOW. I was wondering if this would have an impact on my NPPschool? Thank you! AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 13:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

AngusMEOW, not at all, but thanks for letting me know. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi

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

NPP school

I am a moderately-experienced editor and a new New Page Patroller (NNPP?) -- but I don't think I'm competent at NPP. I would like to get good at the job so that I can help out more. Do you have time to accept me as an NPP student? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, I can probably help, but I'd like to know a bit more about what you're looking for first. Which parts of NPP do you feel like you need help with? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

First, see how I messed up with the first article I reviewed, John Fletcher Dixon-Stewart. I probably should have draftified it immediately, because it was a (well-written) genealogical article that made no claim of notability for its subject. (I also tried to find more information to establish notability but couldn't.) I thought about PROD or AfD but did not want to discourage the creator. So I notified the creator that it needed to establish notability, but the creator didn't do any more work on the article. So today I draftified it, which I probably should have done on the first day. I am not sure how NPP school would work, but what I imagined was that you would flag a few articles for me to review and then afterward tell me if I made the right choices. I didn't check if you are in my time zone, which is Boston-area. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, in hindsight, I think that PROD would have been more appropriate than draftifying. While not wanting to discourage editors is a good instinct, in practice it's better to nominate for deletion and send them an invitation to the teahouse than it is to draftify. Marking for deletion brings more editors into the discussion, ensures a visibly fair hearing, and provides a primer on notability and article creation. Moving the article to draftspace effectively silos it off from other editors (except for the AfC reviewer, months later), and many new editors get discouraged and give up at that time. The {{Notability}} tag a few days earlier is enough of a fair warning for the editor that the article isn't up to snuff. Draftify should really only be used to quarantine suspected COI/UPE content, for articles that are about likely-notable subjects but that are patently unacceptable in their current form (e.g. due to BLP issues or extremely non-neutral wording), or for articles that are about subjects that aren't notable but may contain content that could be reused for another article (e.g., article about a non-notable book that includes biographical information about a likely-notable author).

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

A barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For patrolling and reviewing new pages, I hereby present you this barnstar. Cheers! Kambai Akau (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A query

Am I allowed to edit an article that I have proposed for deletion at AfD? I was removing some content that wasn't there in the reliable independent source from Aliza Ayaz(an article which was first started by Az.jooma in 2019, if you look at their edit history it looks like their account was created just to promote the subject, a lot of spam content in the article was already removed by other editors, and I am also removing them too. I feel that the subject clearly fails WP:GNG and also SNG(for academic), would be glad if you can help me with this and give your feedback. Thank you so much! ^_^ AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 17:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

AngusMEOW, you're allowed to, but it may not be a great idea. It can give the impression that you may be trying to sabotage the article (especially if you're removing content, even if you're totally right about it from a policy-perspective), and will be wasted effort if the article ends up deleted. If there's something in the article that you think could mislead people into voting keep (e.g. impressive claims not backed up by sources), just address that in the AfD discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then I won't touch the article. My AfD comments weren't up to the mark, if it goes for keep, can I propose for deletion again with proper addressing? AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 17:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

AngusMEOW, I'd advise against that, people would take that as tendentious. As for your comments, while I would've name dropped GNG earlier, I don't think there's an obvious stronger case for deletion that you could have made. What's more, the article seems to be destined for draft space at this rate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok! Yes, it will be draftified. :) AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 17:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle acts strange

I was wondering if you could help me in removing the 2nd nomination of Hyperlink InfoSystem. My twinkle is not functioning properly I don't know why. While tagging the article for deletion, Twinkle threw me an error and when i tried for the second time, I ended up creating two AFDs.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao, I fixed up the nominations. You may want to report this as a bug at WT:TWINKLE _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I will keep that in mind and thanks for help :)--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Umakant Bhalerao: By any chance, do you remember what error did it throw? – SD0001 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: I don't exactly remember what error it threw but it had to do with AFd (step 3).--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect patrolling

Hi I'm wondering if you can just add me to redirect-autopatrolled list? I keep getting notifications of redirect patrols you do, and to be frank, it's annoying. I am familiar with policies around redirect creation and only create them where needed, such as while going through this list and finding that an article already exists at a different name. Thanks. – SD0001 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

SD0001, it looks like you're a bit short of the mark where I usually add people to the list, having only created 51 redirects (I generally add editors who have over 100 redirects with few-to-no deletions between them). Additionally, unlike the real autopatrolled permission, getting added to the list isn't going to spare you of notifications, it's just going to have a bot check you off instead of a NPP editor. If you find the notifications annoying, you can turn them off by going to Preferences>Notifications and unchecking the "Page review" box. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

RfD closure

Hi Rosguill, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_5#Template:Usemdydates. Just a small comment since you stated that the majority was for keeping the redirects; actually, this was the case only at the beginning of the discussion, but overall, there were 3 keeps, 3 deletes (originally 4, including my own vote, but one later changed to neutral) and 2 neutral votes (including the one who changed his minds), so counting the numbers there really was parity, thus no consensus (unfortunately). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, thinking back, I may have counted 2pou's struck vote as keep? Not much of a difference either way though. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

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.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, Just checking to see if you got my email?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao, yes, I had already replied _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my redirects!

I thank you so much for reviewing my redirects I created! I really appreciate it!

Closure of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Left_sidebar_update_follow-up

Hi Rosguill, I noticed that you closed this discussion, but you didn't make the necessary changes to the sidebar. Is there a particular reason why you didn't do that? Was it your mistake? Let me know. Interstellarity (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, sorry, I got distracted afterward and it slipped my mind. I've gone ahead and made the changes. I wasn't even aware of how tooltips and the sidebar were coded prior to doing this, but I seem to have got it working on the first try. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's OK. I saw the changes you made to the sidebar. Interstellarity (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Revdel on Ramen?

Hello! Please take a look at [17] and consider rev-delling the full-name reference to some targeted young person. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima, I think that revdel is unnecessary, as I was totally unable to find any trace online of either individual mentioned in the edit, and it didn't include any defamatory information. That having been said, either page protection or a block is on deck if the disruption continues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for taking a look! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar

Although we know Help:Introduction has proven to not encourage people to learn more about editing Stats. I got to tap my hat off to you for a good close...all points accounted for. Your advice to create a new page that was suggested by long time editors will be the way forward when we are saturated by mobile device editors. We will have to advice people "how to" that dont have the toolbar because they are in mobile view. Thank you for your work...great job.--Moxy 🍁 21:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, I'll thank you for the compliment on the face of it, but I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to by Your advice to create a new page that was suggested by long time editors, as I'm not sure what part of the close meets that description. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned in the rfc length, format for accessibility and assumption all are on desktop view is a problem + .. we can do better, and that we should prioritize introductions that more briefly explain what Wikipedia is. In the absence of a status quo to fall back on, the outcome of this discussion is to adopt the frontrunner, although editors can continue to workshop better solutions. We can do better....we can make it short, we can format it so all have easy access, we can try to attract mobile users.--Moxy 🍁 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, ah, thanks for the clarification. In my mind that was more of a summary than a recommendation, hence the confusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Q

Can you have a look at this and other edits? It's outside my expertise, but it's a weird set of edits for a first-timer. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, yeah, that doesn't really make any sense for a new editor to know (or care) about that kind of gnoming. I can't say that the actual edits ring any bells as far as disruptive editors. There's a good chance that this is an attempt to pad their edit count. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hi, do you consider this one a reliable source for Martin Meylin bio ? --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Marcric, it's not clear whether the piece was published anywhere. Since it doesn't seem like it should be a terribly controversial subject, you may be able to argue that Dr. Timothy Trussel is a sufficient expert in the field to justify use of the piece. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So, will republish my version with the new source and a "further reading" item. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Marcric, be advised that one source is generally not enough to justify establishing an article. You need multiple citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, but it is explicitly a stub be my guest to make it better... Will create and link a portuguese language version of it ASAP. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that based on the list of citations in the article you shared above, you're not going to have too hard of a time establishing notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First step, second try  Done. New and improved Martin Meylin article stub. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Marcric, the revision you just wrote has been flagged as copyvio, see [18]. I'd suggest that you rewrite the sections that you copied in (and that are flagged by the link I provided) or I'm going to have to remove the content in question. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, my English and Wiki skills are not sufficient to achieve what is needed. I give up. Do what you need to. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Marcric, I've fixed the text in this article, but going forward it is important that you not copy and paste text like that. It's a violation of Wikipedia's policies and can get us in legal trouble. I'd suggest that you even avoid copying text with the intent to change up the phrasing before publishing the edit. Continued failure to follow our copyright policies will unfortunately result in a loss of editing privileges. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your cooperation. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing so many of my articles! Juan de Bolas Talk 02:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

NPP

Hello Rosgull, I am planning to go on a Wikibreak early next month since I have to deal with a few things in rl. I was granted NPP right for two months as a trio period and it will be expiring early next month as well, when I am on the Wikibreak. I believe I have established a track record of having reviewed more than 100 pages during my trial. Is it wise to post a request at WP:RFP/NPR or should I wait? Your insight will be appreciated. Best regards Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 21:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Synoman Barris, I think it's fine either way. The only thing I'd avoid doing is having the permissions request be your literal first edit when you come back. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I’ll have to request early for extension. Thanks Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 22:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Patrol

Hello. Please see the article - Abinsk Electric Steel Works. The participant posted a template about lack of significance and advertising. The article presents the leading Russian news agencies: Kommersant, Vedomosti, Interfax, RBC Group. Look please. Significance is shown by authoritative sources. There is no advertisement. Namerst (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Namerst, you should bring this to the attention of the editor who placed those tags. My guess is that they felt that the coverage, while in reliable sources, is too WP:ROUTINE to clearly count towards establishing notability. The POV tag, meanwhile, is a comment on the article's written content, not on its sourcing. I don't think that the article's writing is egregious and I probably wouldn't have placed that tag myself, but I can see why they might have felt that the article was not neutrally written. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

term Batching( [computer graphics]) at the Vulkan API page

Rosguill, I saw that you reverted my change regarding Batching at the Vulkan API page, Does it mean that description provided does not meet the real explanation of the term Batching in a certain scope? As I understood batching in that scope exactly about optimization, I would modify if it makes sense, should I, or what better to do? Максим Т17 (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Максим Т17, I'm not sure what you mean by the Vulkan API page, I only remember reverting your edits at Batching. I think that there were two issues with that article: the first was that while the article's content suggested that the subject was a distinct topic, the cited sources seemed to be talking about the same subject as Batch processing, in which case we don't need new articles. The second issue is that even if I'm mistaken about the article duplicating the scope of an existing article, you created said article at Batching, which is an ambiguous term that needs to stay as a redirect to the disambiguation page Batch. If you can find sources to establish that batching in the context of computer graphics is notable deserves a separate article (and I don't think that the sources you cited were enough to establish notability even before considering the overlap with the existing article), it would need to be created at Batching (computer graphics), not at Batching. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks for the explanation, I have added an article "Batching (computer graphics)" which covers the definition mentioned on "Vulkan API" page for my opinion. Максим Т17 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Максим Т17, I'm still not seeing how it's a distinct subject from Batch processing, and will likely nominate it for deletion soon if you can't address this issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill In Batch processing article described the term as more general in the scope of Computer science. In my case, there is an explanation more dedicated to computer graphics, as an approach for optimization. Feel free to remove if there is no distinct subject.Максим Т17 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Максим Т17, it seems like something that would be more appropriate as a section of Batch processing, rather than as a separate article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Ok, I agree with that, I can do it. But I will be busy the next day or even more. And I'm not sure how the author of the Batch processing article may react, maybe he(she) thinks that explanation is already fine.Максим Т17 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Максим Т17, no one owns articles on Wikipedia (see WP:OWN), so you're well within your rights to start making changes to Batch processing. I think a good place to add content to the article would be as a subsection of the "Common batch processing usage" section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, ok I got it. Would it be not a problem if it will take 1-2 days? We can remove the article what I've added today, when I will be available I will extend the section on the existing page.Максим Т17 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Максим Т17, sure, there's no deadline. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, could I ask you to remove the article - Batching (computer graphics), I'm not sure how to do it correctly) And I'm not seeing an option for this on the page. Thanks.Максим Т17 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Closing note

Hello, I can't make sense out of your note here. Just because the thread was automatically archived, the closure could be still made. There was clear-cut consensus for sanction with 11 support for the sanctions and only 5 opposes for the sanctions (entirely blaming other unnamed editors for the disruption without diffs). In which book multiple violations of 3RR, misrepresentation of sources, gross CIR, among various other methods to disrupt Wikipedia is not sanctionable? You should modify your close or allow someone else to do it.

P.S. disruptive editing by this user is still continuing. See this edit on  Mughlai paratha. Can you verify if the added source mentions "Bengal subah"? The CIR is still recurring even after an extended ANI. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I read through the discussion. While there was a majority in favor of sanctions, there were several editors opposed and it wasn't clear that those in favor of sanctions had refuted their points. I actually had originally written a closing statement for no consensus, but scrapped it once I saw that the page had already been archived. While there were some valid accusations of poor editing conduct, a significant amount of the allegations and diffs were simply not sanctionable behavior. It seemed like editors were trying to throw everything they could at Za-arimasen to see what would stick.

As for this specific additional evidence, I agree that the source doesn't mention "Bengal subah", but from reading the talk page it doesn't seem like that's what Za-arimasen was trying to establish with that source; their main intent seems to have been to establish that the dish hails from Bengal, which the source does establish (Dhaka, to be precise). Bengal Subah appears to have been added to the article much earlier as a piped link for "Mughal Bengal". It could be argued that that's improper synthesis, but no one seems to have actually made that case at the article's talk page or in its edit history. Going back to the source, it mentions how a lot of the culinary influences associated with Mughlai parantha predate the Mughals, but it doesn't give a firm date for its invention other than the myth involving Emperor Jahangir; other cited sources such as this book (probably the most reliable source in the entire article) do appear to describe it as a Mughal-era innovation.

Honestly, this additional allegation is exactly the kind of argument that left me unwilling to impose sanctions at ANI. The edit isn't flawless, but neither is it clearly something sanctionable, and you haven't done your homework of engaging with the edit in question to demonstrate that it actually is a problem. I can empathize that it can be very frustrating to engage with an editor that you believe is editing poorly or in bad faith, but if that's the case you should be making your ANI case based on existing interactions that you've had with them and obvious breaches of policy, not based on additional diffs that you think look suspicious but aren't obviously problematic. To me, all this diff establishes is that you're jumping to assume bad faith (or incompetence) on the part of this editor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is very clear on ANI. Nobody had refuted the "violations of 3RR, misrepresentation of sources, gross CIR, among various other methods to disrupt Wikipedia". In which book such behavior isn't sanctionable especially given the very block log of the editor in the question? In fact the majority of editors had agreed with the problem and the all of those editors are in good standing.

Me and dozens of editors have had enough interaction with the editor in question and all attempts have ultimately failed. To say that everyone should continue to fix their mistake while they should remain obtuse towards any concerns raised about their disruptive editing is simply not possible. You agree that source misrepresentation took place on Mughlai paratha, even after an extended ANI and nothing else really matters more at this stage. Finding loopholes might be appreciated when the editor is new and mostly constructive but the case is totally opposite here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There was plenty of push back on the various allegations. I stand by my decision, and I note that the only admin to participate in the discussion opposed sanctions. If there's edit warring, take it to AN3. Finally, I don't agree that what happened at Mughlai paratha is source misrepresentation, and I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion from reading my comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing the many articles and redirects that I've created. I realize that it must be tedious but just so you known, it is appreciated! Mgkrupa 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mgkrupa. I actually just checked and your track record for redirects is good enough to let the bot mark them as reviewed, so I won't be reviewing those anymore. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool! I hope that you have a good rest of your day. Mgkrupa 18:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For keeping the ship afloat the old fashioned way, I award you...

	The Iron Age hand bailer of Nydam Mose
	DannyS712 bot III seems be topping the NPR charts these days, but you and a couple of other editors have been nipping at its electronic heels for some time now. Just a few weeks ago we were up at >10,000 articles in the queue - it's been great to see that figure come down, largely due to your amazing contributions. Thanks, and keep it up! GirthSummit (blether) 15:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit, although perhaps in the future we should call this the John Henry award? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I think I know a song about him! GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As long as you're redacting

I noted that you redacted an untoward comment I made about the seemingly aggressive nature of another editor who borders on zealotry. Thank you for keeping me in check. I don't want to make feel unwelcome a new editor who just happened to come join us on Wikipedia only three months ago. Me, I've only been here for eight years, so maybe I'm not "new" and "fresh" and "hip" enough to put my feelings aside when I see that newer editor saying "adulterous Mary who opened her private parts to Roman soldiers" about Mary, the mother of Jesus whom millions hold as a sacred person. I wouldn't want to see that new editor's personal thoughts on religion redacted, the way my thoughts on religion were redacted. We must give the more aggressive new editors a wide berth, so that they feel welcome. - AppleBsTime (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

AppleBsTime, The edit you've highlighted here is in incredibly poor taste as well, and appears to have been removed at some point between when it was made several weeks ago and today. I can't revdel it without taking a huge chunk of history from the page out as well so there isn't much I can do about it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Not canvassing for input, but if you are so moved: I opened a WP:AN/I about the user AleviQizilbash. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A request for help

I have a question about something that took place several months ago, so you may not remember it well enough to be able to help. but if you can I shall be grateful.

I am looking into concerns that an editor has raised in an email, that a particular editor may be using sockpuppets, and also that those sockpuppets may be used for undisclosed paid editing. I have discovered that in the past the editor had the autopatrolled right removed because of suspicion of undisclosed paid editing, and then requested restoration of that right. You declined the request in this edit, but three days later you restored the right. As far as I can see you did not explain anywhere the reason for your change of heart; if you did then you did so in a post which is not at all easily findable, and certainly not very close to the time when you restored the right. As I said above, it was some time ago and you may not remember it well, but on the other hand publicly declining a request, leaving it for a few days, and then granting it without any explanation is such a striking thing to do that perhaps you had reasons which were sufficiently special and unusual that you do remember, in which case it would help me if you could let me know what those reasons were. Also in the post I am linking you referred to "additional information" you had received off-wiki. Is it possible for you to let me know what that information was? JBW (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

JBW, I do remember this incident and I'll respond via email. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. JBW (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Kneipp

Dear Rosguill,

Thanks for reviewing the (redirect) pages around Kneipp treatment/medicine/... Actually I had forgotten that I created them but I think it´s important because we Wikipedians IMHO often care too less about "SEO" (and "tend to a bit digital autism”").

I don´t know if you have any experience with this Kneipp stuff but it´s popular in the German speaking countries. I also created this article where you can see some pictures of devices.

BTW I like this quote from Sebastian Kneipp: "If you don't have time for your health today, you'll need a lot of time for your diseases later."

Have a good new week --F.Blaubiget (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: I find your contributions and profile really interesting, e.g. so many language skills (I think combined with Google translate and DeepL it´s unbeatable to see through in this world; I didn´t know that Jiidisch is written in Hebrew characters). Sometimes I have questions about WP and it would be nice if I could aks you - as a experienced global contributor - from time to time.

F.Blaubiget, thanks for the message; if you have any questions I can try my best to answer them, or at the very least point you to somewhere where you can find a better answer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill, very nice. I would have one thing already: Norman conquest of England I thought I would have explained it well enough so that others do understand the improvement, but it was reverted. Is there really a need to start a discussion on the talk page? I added "(often called Harold or Harold II)", otherwise the use of family name and given name is irritating:

"...was succeeded by his brother-in-law Harold Godwinson (often called Harold or Harold II). The Norwegian king Harald Hardrada invaded northern England in September 1066 and was victorious at the Battle of Fulford, but Godwinson's army defeated and killed Hardrada at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September. Within days, William landed in southern England. Harold marched south to oppose him, leaving a significant portion of his army in the north." — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Blaubiget (talk • contribs) 10:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

F.Blaubiget, yeah, taking it up on the talk page is the appropriate next step. It's possible that the other editor thinks that it's clear enough who Harold is without the explanation, or else didn't realize that we refer to him as Harold in that paragraph. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, thank you, then I will take it up on the talk page (I thought correcting a confusing, inconsistent use of family and given name is an easy thing; especially because there is Harold as well as Harald). Have a good new week --F.Blaubiget (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

my article- georgian fashion model Mathilda Mariam Gvarliani

Please check out my article, I have been waiting for a long time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Failure of international mediation

Thank you for your assistance on this page. I've been following this conflict from the start (1988) and the UN Resolutions were key in bringing the whole temper of the war down, and the OSCE Minsk mediation then came out of those. This then turned into the Madrid Principles, which is what was on the table until 2016-2020. There is no doubt that the Madrid principles are the state-of-the-art in international relations. There is also no doubt that the international community took their eye off this conflict, around 2016, for some reason, resulting in the failure of the Madrid Principles and now hundreds of deaths. I have now added back in the statement and backed it up with one Armenian, one Azerbaijani, and one Russian (former colonial power) cite, the latter essentially being a Russian language transcript of the President of Artsbakh on the Principles and worth reading. Johncdraper (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I actually hadn't meant to remove that, while I was working on improving the chronology of the Background section I must have accidentally left it on the cutting room floor. I've gone ahead and made the changes I had originally intended, changing the wording and position of the claim, but keeping the information itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Okay. Thank you. BTW, both Armenians and Azeris have been tweeting about both the Wikipedia page and what's happening on the Talk page, which is why it's been getting so many hits, especially after the page hit the Main Page, at which point all hell broke loose until I arrived. I managed to edit out much of the 'death or glory' language and added the Calm and Contentious templates, which helped calm things down further. However, there are persistent attempts to re-open issues (not talking about mercenaries vs. volunteers; that is obviously a valid discussion), spam the Talk, or otherwise abuse or misuse it, whether deliberately or out of lack of knowledge about a Talk's purpose, and I have now started moderating the Talk more judiciously, while spelling out exactly why I am deleting, rejecting or removing posts. It looks like we could be in for the long haul, unfortunately. Johncdraper (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper The help is appreciated, I'll try to keep a closer look on it in the coming days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

thank you for advice. Now I have deleted data from the article, the references of which were more or less not specified. I don't get paid for writing the article. Please review the article carefully and if you have additional remark, let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, do you have any connection, financial or otherwise, with Gvarliani, her modeling agencies, or press agencies that are working with them? For what it's worth, the sources are still woefully inadequate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockfarm interference

Hi. Hate to bug you. There are three articles which were created by a banned user, User:Daaask, which I've tagged for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, ip socks are continually removing the CSD templates. Could you have a look at them, and if you feel that no other editors have made substantial contributions, could you take care of them. I've gone through the history, and the only substantial contributions I can see being made are by the various socks of the sockpuppeteer. The artices are Endrendrum Punnagai (TV series), Piriyadha Varam Vendum (TV series), and Kandukondain Kandukondain (TV series). A fourth one, Hansika Motwani filmography before the tag was removed, although a fifth, Gokulathil Seethai (2019 TV series), was reviewed by another admin, who thought that there was enough editing by other editors to negate it being created a blocked editor. Thanks, it's just annoying to have to keep re-adding the tags.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That was quick! Thank you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Article

Sir, am Govindhammal Murugesan, As i saw that Endrendrum Punnagai (TV series) was deleted, i am watching this series and i love it. May i create it sir please!!!. Govindmmalcc89 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Can u replay sir please!!Govindmmalcc89 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Operation Kamala for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Kamala is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Archiving the 2020 N-K Talk

Would you please consider archiving some of the Talk topics on this page? I think it might be a good idea as it is around bedtime for the region. Johncdraper (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

I have added an important source, please check again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, my opinion remains unchanged. Unless you can find sources in a news publication or professionally published magazine, I don't think you're going to have much luck here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Diocese of Duvno

Greetings!

May I know why the Diocese of Duvno article was renamed (moved)? Why did you drop the Catholic adjective? I'm asking because I don't know whether your edit concerns only the ancient defunct dioceses or it concerns all of the dioceses, such as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno? --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, A request was made to G6 the page now at Catholic Diocese of Duvno, which seemed uncontroversial if unnecessary, so I partially complied and swapped them instead. I don't have a personal opinion on the title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

I'm shocked .. I specifically told a Matilda agent to do a Matilda profile on models.com. Please delete unreliable sources or part of the text .. to find out which source to replace. models.com, fashionmodeldirectory.com, vogue.it, fashionpress.it and Matilda Agency Websites> If you do not trust these sites then you are making fun of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, per your above response, you need to comply with our conflict of interest disclosure guideline as you appear to have some sort of connection to the subject of the article you are trying to publish. Failure to do so before continuing to make edits will result in you being blocked from editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

my article

Once again I say Matilda is my friend. I do not receive any compensation. He just asked me to create his page and I did not know if approving the article would be so difficult .. I have nothing to do with the topic of this article and how can I prove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Tatowiki725, even being just your friend is considered a conflict of interest and requires proper disclosure on both your user page and the article talk page, and it is highly discouraged for you to edit such articles. If you insist on editing it further, submit it through the WP:AfC process, which handles new articles by editors with conflicts of interest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Another problem very similar to one you've handled

Would you please consider helping at this page as you did at Physical attractiveness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_Freedom,_and_Diversity&action=history

Namely, please consider protecting the page and block the two accounts (one of which is an obvious sock). They are trolling by trying to add the names of real but unrelated people to this unsavory political party.

They also uploaded a picture of somebody to Commons with a file name tying her to this political party. Not sure how to handle that. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I've gone ahead and blocked the offending accounts. I don't see any similar activity prior to OrangeRodent's editing so I'm going to hold off on page protection for now. I'm guessing that the best thing to do with the Commons image is just to start a deletion discussion for it over there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

'2019–2020 outbreak' redirect

Just wanted to clarify your keep determination for 2019–2020 outbreak. This pertains only to the redirect itself, not the hatnote, correct? There seemed to be consensus that the hatnote was not necessary. The redirect accounted for 130 PVs out of 1.6 million over the last 30 days. Let me know if this is incorrect though. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikmoz, yeah, the close refers to the redirect itself, and I agree that the discussion regarding the hatnote was largely agreement for its removal. IMO a discussion about whether or not to keep a hatnote belongs on the article's talk page, not at RfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thanks so much for clarifying. I'm new to redirect threads so it's my content that created the confusion. I'll avoid bringing up hatnotes in the future. For avoidance of doubt, would it be possible to just edit the close to "keep redirect."? Thanks again. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! - Wikmoz (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Article

Can you please verify the article Draft:Piriyadha Varam Vendum (TV series) and move to main page sir. Kannalane (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Kannalane, just submit it through AfC, there's a button on the draft that you can click. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was Republic of Artsakh article unprotected?

The previously protected article may be left open for editing and subject to vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.171.119 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You can read the page's protection log here. It was protected for 2 weeks at the outset of hostilities in September, after which the protection automatically expired. This is by design, since generally articles don't need to be protected except when being actively vandalized, and we don't protect pages preemptively. I do see that there's been a fair amount of vandalism over the past few days, so I've protected the page for an additional week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you but the following part in the beginning has been changed while it was unprotected and can you delete it as if it is incorrect. that is internationally recognized as a part of azerbaijan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.171.119 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Mm, as far as I'm aware that's accurate based on reliable sources, no country (not even Armenia) has extended recognition to Artsakh. You're going to have to suggest that as a change on the talk page, and bring sources in tow. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

It may be necessary to semi-protect this Talk. See forum-like comments removed. I cannot patrol overnight. I am officially busy. What do you suggest? Johncdraper (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, protecting a talk page is a pretty drastic step because there's no way for editors to make requests to get around it, so I'm not sure that's a good idea at this time, and likely won't be unless we have a spate of editors aggressively disrupting the page rather than just making redundant or poorly considered edit requests. I'll make a post asking for help at WP:AN to hopefully get a few more hands involved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on youth career in infobox

Hi, for the votes I count:

1. Option 1: 5 (16.7%)
2. Option 3: 12 (40.0%)
3. Option 5: 2 (6.7%)
4. Option 6: 1 (3.3%)
5. Option 7: 10 (33.3%)

Opposed:

1. Option 1: 2
2. Option 7: 3

Some people changed their minds, and some votes are a bit more ambiguous at first reading (for example, Option 1(b) plus Option 3 is advocating for an option 3(b), not 1(b) and 3). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nehme1499, I think that regardless of which count method is used, we still fall short of consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Do you think this is a good method? Everyone votes for one of the three options, and opposes another. This way, each person "ranks" the three options in order of preference (one is the "best", the other the "worst", and the third option is the "compromise"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nehme1499, it seems a bit too bureaucratic and vote-centric to me. I think that given the non-trivial amount of editors who seem happy with the current status quo, and that the second-most popular option was to just to exclude the at-issue content entirely (option 7), I don't think it's likely that you're going to be able to form a consensus for any of the currently proposed alternatives, with the possible exception that continuing to dispute the issue may push editors towards option 7 as people decide that the issue isn't worth the effort. Hashing out the issues around 1b or 3b may realign some editors, but I'm skeptical that this would provide a decisive advantage to a side in the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the implication that, by just dropping the stick, we will just have to accept the status quo. I don't see it as "5 people are happy with the status quo", rather, that over 80% doesn't accept it (and some explicitly oppose it). While there is not an explicit consensus for a specific vote, it is evident that the vast majority of people in the project (and some outside of it) want the situation to change. There has to be a reasonable solution to this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nehme1499, you're welcome to keep working at it. But I don't think that a different voting system is going to fix the problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Pollack

What do I need to do in order to accept this draft, now that the RFD for Michael Pollack to Michael J. Pollard was closed as Keep? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, just file a G6 request when you're ready to accept the draft. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, in looking at it, I think that I should rename it to Draft:Michael Pollack (musician), and then accept that. I think that I have the ability to do that, but will check with you and with User:GeneralNotability first, because there is an EC-move protection due to suckpoppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, if it's just EC protection I don't think you'll have any problem. In that situation though, it may be appropriate to add a hatnote at the current target, or possibly to reopen the RfD discussion in light of the changes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Rosguill - I have accepted the draft as Michael Pollack (musician), and have converted Michael Pollack into a disambiguation page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Robert McClenon, if you think it's an accept then you can move it yourself (I trust your judgment). GeneralNotability (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI de-indexing talk close

Administrator's noticeboard already appears on MediaWiki:Robots.txt as disallow, and {{BLP}} already noindexes most BLP talk pages with an explicit __NOINDEX__. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno, thanks for the note, I'll add a mention of that in the close. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What the latter doesn't noindex of course are talk page archives for BLPs, which I think was a (the?) point of the discussion there. I don't want to re-read it. :) --Izno (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno, the discussion was about talk pages more broadly, although the oppose votes predicated on external searches being useful were mostly about archived pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your dedication. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:The9Man submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I gladly nominate Editor Rosguill to be this weeks Editor of the Week for his untiring work at the NPP and for guiding other editors on implementing NPP policies. He is THE man who dedicatedly works, on a day to day basis, to clean up the queue. His time spent accomplishing the needed work and his dedication to Wikipedia is impressive and should be appreciated by all editors. Here is a link to support my claim - Top New Article Reviewers in Last 365 Days.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)