Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Hi Rosguill, I am a student from Northeastern University, I wrote the wiki page of Rena Margulies Chernoff. My draft is still in reviewing status and I need one wiki expert to assess general notability guidelines for my paper. Can you help me to evaluate it? Thank you!–Hsienhsienlee (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Hsienhsienlee: I can help out with this. Right now I think that the subject's notability, based on the sources you've provided, is borderline. WP:GNG states that subjects need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While you've given several reliable sources, the three most significant ones (the CNN piece, the LA Times article, and the memoir itself) are not independent (as they are written either by Chernoff or her son) and thus don't count toward the guideline. Of the remaining sources, I'm not sure that they really cover Rena Chernoff in sufficient depth, as they focus more on the book or the town of Tomaszow during the Holocaust and give only passing mention to Rena Chernoff. You could make the case that combined, these sources provide sufficient coverage, but it's tenuous. Meanwhile, as the writer of one book that does not appear to be highly cited or widely known, Rena Chernoff falls short of qualifying for notability through WP:NAUTHOR.

Now if that were the entirety of possible paths to notability, I would suggest that you look for some more sources, then submit it and hope for the best, knowing that it would probably come down to an articles for deletion discussion. However, while Rena Chernoff may not be notable, the memoir she co-wrote easily passes notability guidelines, with multiple reviews in reliable sources. You could likely repurpose a lot of the content in this article as background information in an article about The Tailors of Tomaszow, and even have Rena Margulies Chernoff redirect to the book's article. Let me know what you think. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thank you for all the suggestions. I added two reliable sources on my page, and since this she already passed away, the only way that I can get the sources are from her son Allan Chernoff and her own book. Also, the article is talk about Rena Chernoff, so I think it is important to write her background information in different sections. I understand that Rena famous is because of her book, but I think she also should be famous because she is the youngest survivor from the Holocaust and she wrote this history of Tomaszow. Thank you again for providing me those valuable suggestion, I really appreciate that. –Hsienhsienlee (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hsienhsienlee: I'd encourage you to read through the guideline at WP:N to get a better idea of what subjects are considered notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. Whether individual editors think a subject is significant or deserves to be famous isn't really a factor in how we decide what goes in the encyclopedia: the purpose of the encyclopedia is to collect information from existing sources and present it in a reader-friendly format, not to promote subjects that have been overlooked by such sources (see also WP:ILIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). I'd also add that just because Rena Chernoff has passed away does not mean that it's impossible for additional coverage to be found: academics and journalists investigate and publish articles on long-dead subjects all the time. Moreover, while it's improper for an encyclopedia staffed by volunteers (i.e. us) to determine whether or not an unverifiable primary source account is reliable, a professional historian would be quite qualified to decide that Chernoff's accounts are important and accurate historical information and publish a book or article based on them, which would then likely be a reliable source that we could use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping us to improve the page about our church, Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church. I have spent months attempting to get this page approved. This was my 3rd attempt. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, it is not easy to locate the most neutral, non-affiliated published sources of info about our church. I am sure most churches run into this problem. I used Google extensively, plus all the specialized search engines that I found in the Help section of Wikipedia. Even though our church is one of the most prominent ones in your denomination, we are not controversial or so large that we get a lot of media attention.

So, I would love find more non-affiliated sources and I will continue to search for them. I am a bit surprised at the suggestion that article not neutral in tone. I'm having a hard time finding even a sentence that isn't a fairly bland statement of fact. Perhaps the mention that our Sunday School program proved popular from the outset? I follow that with a description of how the staff wss somewhat overwhelmed initially by the turnout. Maybe because I referred to our sex-education as popular? Within our denomination, it has been adopted by numerous other churches, but again this particular fact is not something that gets (or has gotten) coverage in any book or media account that I can find.

I will have our Communications Director at the church review the article for spelling, grammar and cohesion. I am fastidious speller and an experienced writer and I don't see any errors in it, but a second set of eyes may turn up something.

Again, thanks for your feedback.

Michael McCrickard (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Michael_McCrickard

@Michael McCrickard: The neutrality comment was precisely about the sentence that you mentioned about the high turnout–it's not a huge issue, but should probably be reworded. The spelling and grammar are fine as far as I saw, but the article's use of bold isn't quite in keeping with the wikipedia manual of style. You can correct this yourself, or you can leave it for other editors more familiar with the MOS to take care of it.

I should also add, that if you are an employee or otherwise closely affiliated with the church, you probably shouldn't be editing its wikipedia article, as that can constitute a conflict of interest. I would recommend reading the relevant guideline at WP:COI before _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill,

Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia! I was wondering if you could give some background on your tags to the Renaissance Youth Center page. Could you point out which sources you think may be unreliable, and what on the page requires copy editing for spelling, grammar, or cohesion? As for notability, news sources have covered multiple facets of the organization, some with followup articles/coverage, and the organization has collaborated with notable entities like Good Morning America, Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, etc. The organization and this page cover all general notability requirements to my reading.

Thanks for any feedback you can give to fix the page

@Jdoernberg: the unreliable sources include Discogs and some citations to PR sites like businesswire (nothing critical to the article, but worth improving upon if possible). The notability issues were due to the relatively limited scope of most of the coverage–notability guidelines for organizations and companies (WP:NORG) are stricter than for most articles, and require that coverage be in-depth, secondary, and contain original analysis. A lot of the provided sources do not engage in this sort of in-depth reporting, and largely rely on quotes or paraphrases from the subjects involved. In particular, I'd suggest reading through the WP:ORGCRITE section–while I do think that it passes this benchmark (otherwise I would have nominated it for deletion), it is a borderline case and I'd like to see either more in-depth coverage in reliable sources, or for an additional previously-uninvolved editor to sign off on it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::::@Rosguill Rosguilltalk . First of all, I want to thank you for having moved the article Giovanni Morassutti to the draft space. I have found some more sources related to this article like this, this and [file:///C:/Users/Giovanni/Downloads/articolo%20cortona%20(14).webp this]. I´ve also recently discovered that Giovanni Morassutti was interviewed on Radio Rai. Here is the link to the podcast Do you think that now there are enough sources to move the article back to the mainspace ? If so would you be able to do that or does the article necessarily need to be submitted as a draft first? Thanks Doratig —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doratig: Unfortunately, the additional sources you have provided here are very borderline for establishing notability. this photo doesn't clearly identify the source–depending on the publication, it may or may not be considered reliable. this is a step up as far as sourcing is concerned (although a link to the actual article is preferable to a link to a photo of the article uploaded by Morassutti), but it doesn't cover Morassutti in depth, and its description of him as una giovane promessa del cinema would suggest that Morassutti is still WP:UPANDCOMING. Granted, that was written in 2002 so it's possible things have changed since then, but if the best sources about an actor's career are trivial coverage from 16 years ago, that doesn't bode well for the subject's notability. I wasn't able to listen to the interview right now; depending on the interview's content and the prominence of the show that the interview was a part of, that could potentially be an indication of notability, but the fact that the interview is hosted as a youtube video posted by Morassutti himself is again a bit of a bad sign as far as its notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::::@Rosguill You can listen to the broadcast from min 35.41 to min 46.24 here It is the last podcast dated 26/09/2018. It was first published by an independent reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doratig (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Hi ::::@Rosguill here another source both newspaper and video related to Article Giovanni Morassutti. Just for your info the broadcast interview discusses Morassutti´s project Art Aia-Creatives/In/Residence in depth. Please let me know if you think that the article is ready for main space now. Thanks Doratig —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doratig: Quite honestly, I think it's still borderline, as the newspaper article is from a tiny local paper and the interview is on a program that isn't primarily about Morassutti. That having been said, I think it's close enough that I'm willing to let it through the review queue with a notability tag–other editors may take a look and decide it's not ready, but it gets my stamp of approval. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@RosguillTHANKS !!!!!!!!@Doratig: @RosguillHi , One last question please. I have found this that covers Morassutti in depth. It comes from this source. Do you think that once added to the Article would be ok to remove the notability-tag ? Thanks @Doratig:

@Doratig: Unless I'm missing something, Cittanet appears to be a blog and "independent editor" site, which means that it's not a reliable source, see WP:BLOGS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill:I think you are right . Therefore no need to add it to the article and to remove the tag.@Doratig:

Hi @Rosguill , I´ve found this additional reference quoting topic to article Giovanni Morassutti. I believe it is coming from a quite reliable indipendent secondary source. Is that right ? Do you think that by adding it for example to the lead paragraph of the article would be enough to remove the notability tag ? Thanks @Doratig:

@Doratig: Yeah that source looks good. Thanks for all the work you've put into this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill Thank you ! I´ve learned so much about guidelines . I´ll add it now and can I kindly ask you to remove the tag please ? Thanks for everything @Doratig:

@Doratig: at this point you can feel free to remove the tag yourself (and generally speaking, once an issue has been addressed you can go ahead and remove tags yourself). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill That is good to know . I appreciate you did it. Best @Doratig:

Hey Rosguill,

Thank you for working with NPP and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss Headout's Wikipedia page that you have marked for deletion based on significant coverage guidelines under WP:ORGCRITE.

As per the guidelines, there must be multiple significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Why would the following references not be acceptable?

- Wall Street Journal

- Skift

- CNN

- Techcrunch

- Times of India

Also, if the same rules were to apply, how would you review the wiki page for Getyourguide or Musement given that the references are similar in terms of sources and coverage (same sources such as Skift, Techcrunch, WSJ and talking about funding and acquisitions)? Would these not serve as precedents?

Also, I don't know how much of a difference this makes, but a lot of users look for Headout's Wikipedia page everyday. The current average search volume for "Headout wikipedia" is 110/month while those of "Musement Wikipedia" is 0/month and "Getyourguide Wikipedia" is 70/month. Though truly this doesn't matter as no Wikipedia guidelines are concerned with search volumes, but it's only to suggest to you that people do look for the Headout wikipedia page.

Schnkmr (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Schnkmr: thanks for following up on this. You're right in pointing out that Headout does have coverage in reliable sources. However, this coverage is not of sufficiently significant depth: companies and organizations are subject to particularly strict guidelines when it comes to determining notability. Per WP:ORGCRITE, trivial coverage, which includes standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage...of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance...[or] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, is not sufficient for determining notability, even if it is in a reliable source, and unlike other guidelines for notability (such as WP:GNG), WP:ORGCRITE states that trivial coverage in multiple sources cannot be combined to equal significant coverage overall. These guidelines are put into place because companies (and other organizations) often generate a lot of borderline-promotional content just by existing, as well as routine news of hirings, firings, and fundraising that don't really indicate anything more than that the company continues to exist. Additionally, web-traffic does not count toward notability: notability guides are there to ensure that we only write about topics that are widely covered enough that we can ensure that there is enough verifiable information available to write a full-length article. The fact that many people are trying to read about it doesn't absolve us of our duty to present reliable, neutral information. Finally, arguing that other articles exist that are even less notable is generally not accepted as a valid argument at deletion discussions, as all that means (usually) is that those articles should probably be deleted as well (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a more detailed explanation).

If you'd still like to make an argument in favor of the article's notability (or if you can provide more coverage that substantiates the article's notability), I'd suggest you do so at the AfD discussion, as that way other editors will actually see it. If you have more questions about notability guidelines, I can do my best to answer them, or you can go to the teahouse to get input from other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill! You created a thread called Having trouble archiving my talk page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Re your tag on the Aisco Stable article. I left you a note on the Talk:Aisco Stable. Thanks. Stretchrunner (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The source appears to be licensed acceptably. ( All Content by Khamenei.ir is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.) Do you think I missed something? --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: My mistake, thanks for catching it, I've reinstated the earlier content and removed the request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thanks, and thanks for all the RD1s you identify. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating The Model Couple.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

I've linked the article to a pre-existing entry on Wikidata (which links to a French-language article, too) and linked to Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB pages for it.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

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

Blythwood (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rosguill. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you think we could improve the categorization? Rathfelder (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I didn't have any specific ideas in mind, but generally speaking most articles can fit into at least three or four categories. I'd suggest looking up similar articles for ideas, but ultimately what's important is that adding that tag adds it to a work-queue that will eventually bring it to the attention of an editor that specifically has experience in adding tags to articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

it's the key article in its own category, a subcat of Category:Health by countryRathfelder (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you consider the official websites and Google Street View links to be Original Research? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@DanTD: Google street view I'd say is OR, it's interpretation of a primary source that is not even in text form. The official website is ok for something uncontroversial like this, but if you're using it as a reference , list it as a reference, not as an external link. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I see you put tag {{notability}} in 2018 Liga 1 U-16 page. I'm a little bit confused about it. Can you give me some advice to meet that criteria please? Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wira rhea: The article actually looks fine, so I've gone ahead and removed the tag. I may have placed it by accident. If you're still interested in learning more about notability, check out WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORTS for relevant guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regards. Wira rhea (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The college is not part of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. It was just affiliated with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University for ONE YEAR. Please use delete option instead of redirecting. Thanks. User:Jpsorts(talk) 01:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted your tagging of the article. There are presently five sources. I think I know which sources you think may not be reliable, but just want to confirm. Could you please add {{Unreliable source?}} or similar directly to the references. if you're not familiar with the work that the projects have done, there are two distinct sources page to help: Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Thanks again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: when I was reviewing it, I was under the impression that they all looked suspicious, with the possible exception of California Rocker, which has some sort of actual editorial staff. Cross referencing with the resource list, it looks like Jesus Freak Hideout is considered to be a reliable source in this case, although none of the other sources appear. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I was initially wary of that source as well, but an earlier participant in the project did some good work in determining that it was a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Your addition to Freedom of religion by country has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Copy-pasting is a copyvio ^{[Username Needed]} 15:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Username Needed: I'm fairly certain that the only non-original content in those edits was from the United States Bureau of Human Rights and Labor's religious freedom reports, which are all public domain documents. If there were any copyvio issues from other sources, please let me know. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rosguill. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia, I know you're not an admin, I just felt you might be more knowledgeable in terms of Wikipedia processes. I actually didn't want an on-wiki involvement of myself in the case, but since you already disclosed it on my talkpage, then I think I have to spill out exactly what I sent to you on-wiki, because the editor in question will have already seen your edit on my talkpage, which was what I wanted to avoid. This was exactly what I sent to you - Hello. Please I want to send a confidential information to Wikipedia concerning <username-removed>. What email can I send it you[to]?. It would have been better if you had ignored my mail than to to come to my talkpage. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia processes surrounding confidential emails, and the reason why I contacted you was because you have been involved with the editor at some time. I already sent the email to an admin, even before seeing your reply. Regards. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeBoy: I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Let me know if there's anything further I can do. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, Thanks for taking out time to review the article. I saw that you placed a tag which reads written like an advertisement. I rechecked the whole article to make sure it should not contain any stuff that violates any of the rules. However, I did not find anything wrong with the page. I would appreciate it if you could just highligt the content where you feel I could have written from nuetral point of view, I will make the necessary correction. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umakant Bhalerao (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Umakant Bhalerao: thanks for following up on this. Looking over it again, I think the tag was a bit overzealous on my part; the issue with the article is that the content included in the article is stuff that would be primarily of interest to people who are considering enrolling their children there (i.e. minutiae about the school's facilities and programs that are relatively generic) as opposed to information about the school's history etc. It's not a huge deal, so I've removed the tag, but keep in mind that the article would be greatly improved by some sort of history section if you can find sourcing for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, sure, I will keep this in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umakant Bhalerao (talk • contribs) 09:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have been contributing to the page Akasha (2018 film) which you had marked as needing additional sources. I was hoping you could give me some suggestions about which areas need further citations so that I can improve the article. Thanks! Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Secundus Zephyrus: honestly I'm not sure why I put that tag, I may have misclicked. Looking now, I'm not familiar with the Italian sources, so you should make sure that they're reliable, but I don't see anything that stands out as an actual problem. I've gone ahead and removed the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll look into the Italian sources for reliability. Thanks! Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Jaguar (1967 film).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Well done, good work. It would be improved by finding some more independent reliable sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

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

Lopifalko (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Have I used the "ping" feature correctly? Thank you for helping me with the article Nike Dattani. I have removed all references to Wikipedia article, and instead created the section "See Also" which lists the Wikipedia articles that used to be cited as "references". I only added these three, because adding all articles that appear in the "What links here" page, would be too many and started to look weird because the "see also" section started to become as big as the main article. Is it possible to put the "see also" links in several columns instead of just 1? Finally, I need some help with the "categorization" request that you made. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dr. Universe: Good work. I wouldn't worry too much about the categories–that tag being there adds it to a work queue for editors who specifically like to add categories to articles. If you really want to address the issue, go to articles about similar subjects to Dattani and see what categories they have, then add them (or similar ones) to the article if relevant. You can also look into installing HotCat, a plugin that makes managing categories easier.

I would stick to just one column of See Also–also note that if you've already wikilinked to a page in the article, you generally are not supposed to add it as a See Also. As far as pinging, you did it correctly, but it's also unnecessary if you're doing it on my talk page, as I automatically get notifications of that anyway. Finally, I'd still suggest that you break up the article into sections–at the very minimum, add a section header titled "Biography" (or "Career") so that you can have a proper lead at the beginning of the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill,

Thank you for questioning my writing. I am withing (should I call it publishing?) in wiki so that someone can come forward to challenge the work in a professional way or academically. I am happy with what you did early. However, I am NOT happy they way wiki people handle this matter. This is because the work has been deleted without giving me a chance to answer the questions.

Please allow me to answer some of your doubt. You said that the work has insufficient coverage, yet if you look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_numbers_in_fluid_mechanics, there is some number that did not has good coverage (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_number). Self-named is commonly associated with the founder or the one who popularised. I wish that judging is made by reading the whole publication and not only by the content of the article and the abstracts because it is not solid method. I am agreed about the conflict of interest, however, the work has been peer-reviewed by the professionals namely: (1) Three academic reviewers from the IEEE community. They have a strict rule in publication yet has a high impact factor. (2) Three reviewers from Applied Thermal Engineering coming from the various background. (3) The work has been defended in front of experts in flow physics and electrical machine design. Additionally, this work was supervised by four academicians and one industry expert. The four academician has and expertise in: electrical machine, computational fluid dynamic and vehicle dynamic while the industry expert is the founder of YASA topology. You can request the thesis in Coventry University library. Finally, I am agreed that my writing is classified as WP:TOOSOON but I wish wiki can be the place for this cornerstone to rise up and critically question academically.

I am waiting for your reply. Thank you. Fawzala (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fawzala: Answering your various points:

Regarding not waiting for you to give your input on the article, we followed deletion protocol and notified you about the discussion, waited the requisite amount of time, and proceeded with the community consensus. An overwhelming amount of articles that are nominated for deletion were created by people that have long since stopped logging on to wikipedia, and there was no reason for us to assume that things were any different in your case. Moreover, the creator of an article does not have any special privilege or ownership of the articles they create: all of Wikipedia belongs to the community in equal measure (see WP:OWN for more info). If you really think you have an argument that will convince people to reinstate the article, you can take it over to WP:DRV to try to appeal the deletion decision.

Regarding the other articles that have fewer sources, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's generally not considered a good argument for keeping an article in a deletion discussion, because Wikipedia's nature as an enormous collaborative project maintained by volunteers means that for almost any article nominated for deletion, no matter how unacceptable or unnotable, there will be another article that got past reviewers that's even worse.

Regarding self-naming, while that's appropriate for justifying use in academic publications, on Wikipedia we need to go by existing references in reliable sources. The fact that a convention exists for things to be named this way does not mean that we have the license to coin the term on Wikipedia.

As far as the conflict of interest is concern, that honestly isn't the crux of why it was deleted. However, it should serve as a reminder that you should have not created this article in the first place–allow others write about you, do not do it yourself. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia–it is not a web host for any and all academic literature. It is not enough for a paper to have been peer-reviewed, it must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you want to put your work somewhere that others will see it, there are other options, such as ResearchGate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi I have come across a few pages when reviewing that you have already gone through and tagged with maintenance tags. I was wondering if you could mark them as reviewed because the backlog is growing every day and it seems a shame that we have to go over them again when an experienced editor with access to the curation toolbar has already done so identified problems and tagged. Is there some reason why you are not marking them as reviewed? I'm thinking about articles such as Australian Poetry Slam. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: My thought was that in some of these cases, they're articles that would probably be kept at AfD, but that have issues (usually low-quality sources) such that they don't meet notability guidelines with what is included in the article; I generally review from the back of the queue, add these tags the first time I see such an article in the hopes that someone watching the article will take a hint that they need to improve it, and if nothing's changed a few days later I mark reviewed or for deletion. Other times they're articles that I would genuinely appreciate a second opinion on from another reviewer. However, if you think this is unhelpful or a waste of effort I can stop doing it and go with my gut more. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand the idea but I'm just a bit concerned that we are not that many active reviewers and the backlog is growing at an alarming rate. I am afraid that we will rapidly get to the state where a backlog drive will be necessary and we will have to drop the quality to get through it. I mentioned my concerns on the NPP talk page, I didn't mention any names because I'm not calling anyone out I'm just worried that we are not making any inroads and that if might be better to be a bit bolder for a few weeks or so. As you have been doing sterling work I thought I'd try and see what you thought. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis Understood. While there are some scenarios where I think the "tag and release" approach may actually avoid some additional work (by not tying us up in ill-fated AfDs), I'll make a greater effort to come to some sort of conclusion with each article I look at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, I just wanted to reach out to let you know I have made a few changes to the Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple to add sources that are from unrelated parties. In a way, I appreciate you putting the article up for deletion review. I saw your original note about adding sources and I looked up a few but real life got in the way and I forgot about it. I hope the article is more up to Wikipedia standards now. Thanks! Glennfcowan (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill. Many thanks for reviewing Tom McNair (surgeon). I was surprised that you suggested that there were insufficient citations, and as I'm keen to improve standards I'd appreciate if you could explain why. I have cited all 5 biographical references that exist. Of these reference 1 is a full archive including personal papers. The section on his career is 9 lines in length and has 9 citations. When I reviewed it I did wonder if I should have fewer rather than more. Any guidance appreciated. Many thanks.Papamac (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iainmacintyre: Thanks for following up on this. There's still one or two claims that don't have clear citations: the second paragraph in the career section, some sentences in the Early life section, and the line about his marriage and children in the Personal life section. It's all rather minor, but if possible citations should be provided for these claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. Added those in. Thanks again.Papamac (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Tejo, they are 2 different sports with the same name. The position is to be able to treat them each the same level sport; with respect to each sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cportelag (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking at the new page, Rosguill. I'm not sure what to do about the copy-editing, but could you point out some of the claims for which the references need bolstering, please? I'll see if I can fix them up. regards Roger Roger Wood (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Roger Wood: thanks for following up on this. Currently there are entire paragraphs without sources, particularly in the MiniScribe section. The copyediting tag was primarily for tone, although it may also be useful to reorganize some of the sections–e.g. grouping career-related sections as sub-sections under the heading "Career", etc. to make it easier for people unfamiliar with the subject to quickly find key information. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion regarding MJ Long, and for tagging that the lead is too long. You're right that that's the case as it stands, though to be honest it's more that the main body of the article is too short - there's a lot more to say. I'll get round to it eventually! Thanks again. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your comments about Bohdan Dobrzański. I'll think about expending the lead. Good point. If you think that some words may be better translated and the text doesn't look natural could you please change them? This is more or less my level of english and making the article more smoother must be done by some one else. I don't understand your doubts about word soil science. Many people use also term pedology, but soil science is widler. Prof. Dobrzański had so wide areas of intrests that it siuts more. I used to say that I was soil scientist when I was speaking with non-polish speaking colleagues and I had never felt that I wasn't understood. What more, many people described in Category:Soil scientists are described as soil scientists. Plogeo (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Rosguill, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey @Onel5969:, I saw that you marked Number One (2019 film) with PROD due to PAY concerns, but I can't seem to find where in WP:PAY it says that we need to raze articles that have been created by people with a COI. Moreover, I suspect that the topic does narrowly pass WP:NFILM, although I'm not very well-versed with Chinese sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - You're right about it not being in WP:PAY, but those articles are getting whacked right and left at AfD. Figured I'd simply save a lot of editors' time. When I reviewed it, it didn't pass WP:NFILM, as there was nothing in the article that states that production has actually begun. Happy New Year, and keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

In writing the article I tried to stick with facts about the company. But can you provide some details on how I might improve the article? In other words, make it sound less like an advertisement, I already started by removing the words "and more". Demandchange (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Demandchange: thanks for following up on this. Removing the "and more's" is a a big improvement, but the Software/Tools section describes the product using some WP:PUFFERY, and is a bit more buzzwordy than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi, Happy New Year. Hope everything is fine. thank you for your suggestion on Ravi Vadlamani's page, improved the article and removed unnecessary links. Can we remove the orphan tag now. please help me in improving more. Thanks once again. Nagsail (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nagsail: It looks like there's still no incoming links to Ravi Vadlamani so Orphan still applies, although there's nothing stopping you from removing it once you've added added some links from other articles. 07:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the long discussion. template is still left on the article Christian persecution complex, please remove. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

		A plate of Rasgulla for you
		Here is a plate of Rasgulla for you. Rasgulla is a cheese-based, syrupy sweet dish popular in the Indian subcontinent particularly in the Indian states of West Bengal and Odisha. The dish is made from ball shaped dumplings of chhena (an Indian cottage cheese) and semolina dough, cooked in light syrup made of sugar. ... Because your name always reminds me of this Indian sweet. happy New year. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 20:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Hallo Rosguill

thanks for your message. Actually I just moved the the text from the german wikipedia, as it was written in the "wrong" language. Eingangskontrolle (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eingangskontrolle: Sorry about that, I should have checked the revision history more carefully. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill!

Could you specify which statement in the article requires more inline citation? -Mys_721tx (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mys 721tx: thanks for following up on this. It's not so much that any one statement needs more references, but rather that the article as a whole could use references to a wider variety of sources, particularly to sources that are not state media of the PRC. Including content from such sources (together with the existing coverage in the article) would help ensure that all major viewpoints on the subject have been included, and thus create a more comprehensive and informative article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the history of this group/brand deserves its own page. I understand the amount of sources on Tesa is very limited. Rather than redirecting it to its former group, it would be more contributive to add more sources. Or add more info at the place where you redirect to. Which should be the Hexagon group then, not B&S.

Feel free to discuss on the talk page of Tesa also if you feel things are not correct. Robijn (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robijn: Ultimately articles on Wikipedia need to meet the notability guidelines in order to be included in the encyclopedia, and Tesa appears to fall well short of both WP:NORG and WP:GNG, the two relevant guidelines. As a new page patroller, my job is to conduct triage on new articles; the responsibility for providing enough sources to demonstrate notability falls to the editor contributing the article–new page patrol has a backlog several thousand articles long and we simply don't have the number of editors necessary to conduct comprehensive searches for sources for every article. If you would like the opportunity to continue hunting for sources and improve the article, we can move it to draftspace where you can work on it undisturbed. Alternatively, I have no problem with redirecting to Hexagon instead of B&S. I'm willing to hear out whatever other arguments you have for keeping the article, but I should warn you that in my time here I can't remember a single article about a private-sector company that was kept through AfD for any reason other than meeting the standard notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I will look for more source. It is difficult to find historic company information online, but this is important to understand how things around this company have evolved. To indicate how difficult this can be: I took me over two hours to only compile the page that you reviewed, because it involves reading through lots of unrelated things. Also from that I got the impression that the Brown and Sharpe article - to which you wanted to redirect - gives a rather single-sided (maybe American-sided) view of their history with TESA and substantially leaves away that B&S does not produce the equipment anymore since 2001 but TESA does instead... it is mentioned only on the last line of the B&S history. The TESA information helps people looking for this information, therefore I think it is valuable to keep it on wikipedia. In a few days I think I should be able to find some more sources. Otherwise, can move the article to a draft space if you think this takes too long? Robijn (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robijn: I'm going to copy this conversation over to the Tesa talk page so that other page reviewers can see it when they come across the article in the queue. In the meantime you can continue making edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for that. I also noticed you added (earlier already) the wikiprojects interests. I had no idea they existed. Robijn (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robijn: yeah wikiprojects are weird, and it's debatable how much they matter or not as most of them are somewhat defunct (except the Biography one, which is super important because it's how we mark BLPs. If you like you can install Rater by Evad37, which is a plugin that makes adding and modifying wikiproject tags much easier. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for looking at the Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian page. I would appreciate any more specific points you may have to offer- from the most simple points to the most intense critique. From your language box, I don't think you can speak Chinese- and that's good! I want to get your perspective on it and make it nice. Thanks again! Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Thanks for writing the article. I'm not sure I have too many specific points, but the last paragraph of the article was particularly difficult to read–part of this is somewhat unavoidable because of the large amounts of relevant text in Chinese, but you could maybe tidy it up a bit by not having so many footnotes in the middle of sentences (put them at the ends of sentences instead), or perhaps simply including fewer examples of new words. Additionally, you may want to consider moving some of the content in the lead (particularly the comparison to Xiandai Hanyu Cidian) into the article body, and have the lead be a briefer summary of the most important facts about the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Those were some great suggestions; I guess I couldn't take an objective look at what I had written without your help. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, thanks for the assessment of the article (it was the work of a student of mine). I went through it and improved it somehow, and I think the categorization and wikilinks issues should be resolved now. Should I remove the templates myself? I'd rather prefer you take a look, and maybe do it yourself. Best! --Nereo Preto (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nereo Pret: Thanks for following up on this, I've gone ahead and removed the tags. For generally uncontroversial tags like links and copyediting, you can go ahead and remove tags yourself once you think you've made a good faith effort to fix the issues (although for stickier tags like neutrality and notability, it's best to check in with whoever placed them). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you proposed my article, Sam Retford, for deletion. I’ve added numerous extra details about his theatre and television career. Would you, in your opinion, say it’s enough to meet notability guidelines? If not, I can add more information, as it is an informative article considering the rising popularity of Ackley Bridge.

Thanks Joesimnett (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joesimnett: Thanks for following up on this. Unfortunately, the citations you provided do not contribute to the subject's notability, which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you read through WP:N, and especially the section for the general notability guideline, and skim through the subject-specific guideline for biographies to get a better idea of what is needed to demonstrate notability. A quick overview of why the additional sources you provided do not qualify is that they are not independent of the subject: it's not enough to see articles confirming that Retford is an actor or that he acted in a play, we need to see that independent, secondary, reliable sources have chosen to write about him at length (interviews also don't count because they rely excessively on the subject's input and thus are not considered independent). Moreover, the general expectation for actors (as laid out in WP:NACTOR, part of the notability guideline for biographies) is that they should have had multiple major roles in notable productions–while it's not impossible for actors to be notable despite not meeting this qualification, it is unlikely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If it had happened in the United States, Canada or another English-speaking country, perhaps it would be an important event. Or not?--Gustavo Parker (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gustavo Parker: No, it wouldn't. I'd suggest you read through the relevant guideline, WP:NEVENT, but the crux is that there needs to be ongoing coverage well after the event. The message I wrote for the PROD nomination was actually copy-pasted from a similar article about a multiple-homicide in the US–much like the Rimac shooting, there was no coverage from more than a week or two after the event, and hence does not meet notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Fort Myer Construction. Wikipedia discourages controveries sections, per WP:CRITS. Maybe another section title? Bangabandhu (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill. Many thanks for reviewing this article. Could you please indicate those areas in which copy editing is required. Many thanks. Papamac (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iainmacintyre: I don't remember for certain what the specific reason I tagged it was, and it looks like some other editors already took care of some copyediting. I don't see anything wrong with the article looking at it now, so I'll just remove the tag. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK Thanks. @Whispyhistory: Could the query be removed from your review now please. Thank you. Papamac (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

please follow this section , I am expecting your opinion.thanks.M1nhm (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)