Talk:Sasha Roseneil

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I do not think it is "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view" - however, if someone highlights any particular problematic language or phrasing in the talk page I would absolutely edit and correct it. I do not see why this has led to immediate speedy deletion rather than a courteous discussion. The second point related to copyright - I have simply listed the books she has written - of course this will look similar to her list of books on her website. I have verified each book through its ISBN numbers but how can I change the titles? Please suggest to me how I can resolve this - should I list the year first, then the title, maybe take off the publisher in order to not be flagged for copyright? I find it quite unforgiving that a page that is less than 24hrs old can be flagged like this, without allowing others to contribute and improve. --Opto kitty (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because there is enough nuetral material from RS, and more RS i find by google news search, to leave an article that would meet GNG. --Rab V (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

We need a picture

This is a google search of all the pictures of her with generous licences Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sasha Roseneil.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

edit request for Sasha Roseneil article

An edit request posted on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines was deleted (without taking further action), evidently because posting the request there violated Wikipedia protocol per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The content of that request and the subsequent brief discussion can be viewed here.

Quite frankly, I could be misconstruing the issue. I have read that we are supposed to avoid biting the newcomers. I suppose some would say that the response to the original request was level-headed; perhaps this is a matter of POV. By the time I got around to adding my suggestion for a better source, almost two months had elapsed, so the original requestor had evidently thought he had done everything expected for this request to get done. I expected my suggested source would be helpful, but it seems to have been viewed as objectionable, because I should know better? Okay, well with an undue amount of effort, I have moved the request to the proper place (this page). I didn't think my input should have obligated me to actually fix anything, the suggestion itself ought to be seen as a contribution, not obligating further effort unless there is a question as to whether or not it's really an appropriate suggestion. Nevertheless, if you feel offended by this post, then please accept my apologies. Fabrickator (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)