User talk:RoySmith/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hudson Street Hooligans

Hi, regarding your question about the Hooligans entry, I had a couple of reasons. 1) I panicked when i saw that the article was flagged for deletion and didn't know what to do, and 2) I'm trying to save the article from deletion. Somehow I missed the discussion on whether or not to delete the entry and, being new to wikipedia editing, I'm still trying to figure out why it's been flagged and what to do about it. Any assistance or advice you can offer would be much appreciated. Chrislamacchia (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chrislamacchia:, There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hudson Street Hooligans which ended in a consensus to redirect Hudson Street Hooligans to Columbus Crew SC#Club culture. I have no particular opinion one way or the other, but I created the redirect as part of my administrative duties when closing the discussion. If you believe my actions were in error, the right venue would be to ask for a deletion review, but honestly, this was a pretty straight-forward discussion with a clear consensus, so I don't think it's very likely the review would change anything in this case. In the meantime, I'm going to restore the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Ok, if I need to I'll start a deletion review. But first, can you give me a clear explanation of why the article was flagged for deletion in the first place? From what I can discern from the discussion, it's because the organization is "as utterly non-notable (per WP:NORG)," has "No independant(sic) notability" and "Fails to meet WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)." If this is the case should all Wikipedia entries for MLS Supporters Groups be deleted as well? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just genuinely interested in why my article got flagged (considering there are many articles on the topic) and what I can do to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.
Well, it was proposed for deletion by @Rms125a@hotmail.com:. He would be in a better position to explain why he proposed it than I am. I should point out that in these sorts of discussions, the merits of individual articles are generally discussed on their own. The fact that other articles may exist which have similar issues is typically not given any weight. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I proposed the article for deletion as non-notable. I later accepted the consensus by other editors that a merger with Columbus Crew SC#Club culture would be more appropriate. If a new editor wishes to recreate the Hudson Street Hooligans article as a standalone article, he/she must ensure it qualifies as notable. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess I just don't understand what made the Hudson Street Hooligans article not-notable. I've read the article on notability and feel as though I met all of the requirements. "Not-notable" seems to be a pretty subjective reason to propose the deletion of an article, though, so I'll take my chances with a Deletion Review. Thanks for the feedback. Chrislamacchia (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hudson Street Hooligans

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hudson Street Hooligans. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chrislamacchia (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

For the deletion of entry "Yet another cleaner"

I am the author of the article "Yet another cleaner". I was surprised that the article has been deleted this early morning. In fact, I was about to add two reference to this article to make it complete and prove nobility, that is, certified by truste and west coast labs. So I may ask whether the deletion process is reversible.Heavy Punch (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the major complaint at the AfD was that there were insufficient reliable sources. If you like, I can restore the deleted article to your userspace and you can work on it there. Once you've gotten it to the point where you believe it meets our requirements for reliable sources, contact the participants from the AfD and see if you can obtain consensus that the AfD outcome should be changed. One question, though; I notice that Yet another cleaner is about the only article you have ever edited since you created your account. Do you have some personal relationship with the product? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar request for the article's talk page, which had information that could be useful in future. If it was necessary to delete that along with the article, can it at least be emailed to me, or put in my userspace? Either one is fine, I don't need to work on it, just to see it. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing of value on the talk page; just a short note about speedy deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Society of North America Elementary School

Can you take another look at your close here? Redirecting doesn't make sense, looking at the discussion; and even more so, considering that the target you named (ISNA Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) hasn't ever been anything except a redirect to Islamic Society of North America Elementary School. Did you intend to close it as a move to that title? —Cryptic 02:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I must admit, I'm not sure. I had thought I was doing what people wanted at the AfD. I noticed earlier today that @Doncram: reverted my redirect (but didn't have time to do more than observe that it had happened). And, now with your comment, I'm pretty sure I must have messed something up :-) Help me understand what should have happened here so we can fix it. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, taking a closer look at the article and afd myself, it looks like:
  1. It started as a standalone article about an elementary school.
  2. Doncram would have merged it into an article about the controlling organization, which didn't exist.
  3. He then, in effect, wrote a paragraph-long stub about the organization and fully merged the school's article into it, but did both in one edit and at the school article's title (since an actual merge elsewhere during afd would've left us an altogether different mess).
  4. He created a number of redirects to the article, including ISNA Canada, and stated an intention to move the article there.
  5. He documented all that at the afd, and the nominator (there were no other commenters) stated his agreement.
  6. You closed the afd as redirect (to the newly-recreated redirect)
  7. I stumbled across ISNA Canada tonight with a {{db-move|Islamic Society of North America Elementary School|AFD Closed as Move/Redirect}} stuck to it.
I must admit that db-moves always make me a bit uneasy: either I end up performing the move, which I see as problematic when I'm unfamiliar with the subject material or article's history, or am uncertain that's the correct article title in the first place (as here); or I just delete and the redirect gets left as a redlink until and unless someone else moves it.
Meh. What I'm going to do is delete all but the first revision of the redirect, so non-admins will be able to move the article there without me being blamed in the move log for the (possibly incorrect) initialism. Could you amend your close of the afd into "keep and move" or "merge into the newly-created article, as has already been done" or something similar, so we preempt anyone citing the afd as they A) re-creating a standalone article on the elementary school, or B) redirect the merged article off somewhere else? —Cryptic 04:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I have amended my close as suggested. I will leave it to you to handle the technical details, since you seem to understand it better than I do. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks Cryptic; you reconstructed it correctly. I was almost asking the same here (for RoySmith to amend the close), but i put in a technical move request instead, and was going to come back to give feedback after it was fixed. And thanks RoySmith for amending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Society of North America Elementary School. What remains to be done now is for someone to move Islamic Society of North America Elementary School and its Talk page to ISNA Canada. I asked for that to be done at wp:RM's technical move request section, but there is confusion...see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#fixing ISNA Canada technical move request. Maybe he will fix it. Or if someone is an administrator and can just fix this, that would be great. --doncram 05:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
All done now. Thanks again User:Cryptic; i gather from your comment at my Talk page that I might have been able to make the move over redirect (after you reduced the history to one edit), but Anthony Appleyard made the move anyhow. Tx, all done. I don't know what the moral is, i thought I did okay by editing the article to be ready to take a different name, while keeping its edit history of development under the school name. No moral as i see it, just a slightly confusing situation. Cheers, --doncram 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, kind of confusing all around, but I'm glad we got it all sorted out. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/East Coast Basketball League

TheScottDL (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Wondering why, as the page creator, I did not receive a deletion notice or warning for East Coast Basketball League. I spent hours researching and writing the article for this minor basketball league.

  • (talk page stalker) You were notified, but you deleted that notice from your talk page and then repeatedly removed the AfD template from the article. You really can't argue that you did not get any notification. --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking at the history, I see that Randykitty is correct. Sorry, I don't play that game. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book rebinding‎

Keep??? With most of the "keep" !votes actually arguing for a merge and quite a lot of delete !votes? Perhaps you can have a second look at this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I could be convinced to re-close this as No Consensus, but since that ends up the same way, it seems kind of pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I personally think that redirect or merge would have been the correct close (given that even most "keep" !votes mentioned this as a viable option). And there is a difference between an outright "keep" and "no consensus": if the article would be taken to AfD again some months from now, a previous "keep" would be heavily prejudicial. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have reclosed this as NC. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello RoySmith, 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 2015.
Happy editing,
NorthAmerica1000 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Deletions and backlinks

Hi Roy,

I noticed that you deleted The Kremlin Letter (plot) after AfD, but didn't remove the backlink pointing to that deleted article from The Kremlin Letter#Plot. This is part of the standard approach recommended at WP:AFDAI. If you normally do this part of the work and overlooked it on this occasion, please pardon me from writing; otherwise, I hope this helps.

Trusting that this untimely note does not detract from your enjoyment of Christmas. Thanks for your work here!

Best wishes for 2015 – Fayenatic London 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the omission. I see you've already taken care of it; thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


George Gracie

You made a statement here about recreation, relisting, and putting up an AFD. [1]. I have a userfied article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Jorge_Gracie, and would like to move it do that. Can you please help? Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @CrazyAces489:. The comment of mine to which you refer was just one opinion in a discussion which was ultimately closed by @Sandstein:. The decision at that time was that if further improvements were made to the draft, it could be re-evalutated. But, the last change I see made to your draft was on December 12, so there has not apparently been any improvement. My suggestion would be to read about what we consider to be reliable sources, locate some of those, and add them to the draft. Once you've done that, Sandstein would be the best person to evaluate if it's improved enough to be worth another AfD run. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Assyrian propaganda on Wikipedia

Is this the way how you handle problems on Wikipedia by simply closing the case without finding a compromise? What happens, if I put Aramean continuity related topics to the "Assyrian people" article and everything will be deleted or distorted by Assyrian fascists again, because they think they are the owner of this article? They even have a WikiProject called Assyria and don't care about neutrality and support Assyrianism. We are fed up that all our contributions on Wikpedia even with references are getting removed without a valid reason. Are you there to check it and undo it? This is why I was in favour for a neutral common page called Assyrian/Syriac people, Syriac people or whatever focused only on our Christian heritage, where we all agree on. What's wrong with the idea to create articles within a common page to express each groups views? The current Assyrian people article mixed up with Assyrian plus Aramean topics would led to edit wars again.

Read this Link and see how Assyrian fascists from all over the world try to Assyrianize everything on Wikipedia: http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.95;wap2 --Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well written @Suryoyo124:, i also got one of them to admit that it was propaganda, on the Syriac People talk page.

@RoySmith: The vote was closed on the christmas break and Suryoyo124 just edited my User Talk saying it was closed and he could not vote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sr_76 the idea that you would dismiss the votes as sock puppets or people "deeply involved in the content debate" is unfair, because when i first enquired about this we were asked to debate this on the talk page.

you started by saying: 'There is obviously a politically-driven content dispute going on here', that is what i have been saying all along. Which is why I wanted the redirection lifted because you will never clean up the "Assyrian People" page because of the politically driven views on that page. Every thing is immediately deleted that is not Assyrian propaganda.

then you write "there is strong consensus to let the AfD result stand", where? 2 out of the 3 people that voted were also involved in the debate, but you did not dismiss their votes as "deeply involved in the content debate". Sr 76 (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year RoySmith!

Happy New Year!

RoySmith,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 01:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Plowback retained earnings DRV closure

Your recent closure of the Plowback retained earnings deletion review discussion appears to be based solely on a headcount as despite an extensive debate that took place there, it contains no closing rationale; as such, the closure was inappropriate and I'd like to request that it be undone.

If I am wrong, and the closure was performed appropriately, i.e. based on the validity of the arguments presented during the debate, I'd like to instead request that you explain how you reached the conclusion that the outcome of the discussion was to endorse. Writing the explanation, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that consensus is not to be confused with the result of a vote. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There really wasn't any need to do a deep analysis here. Other than you, it was unanimous to endorse. What I'm not understanding is why you are devoting so much effort to such a trivial issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue of improper, or arguably proper but insufficiently explained, closures is not trivial. It's pivotal to the proper functioning of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia that whenever a discussion is formally closed, a reasonably detailed rationale be provided, allowing everyone involved to move on.
As per WP:Consensus#Determining_consensus, "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Note the use of the words "quality" and "arguments" and the absence of the words "quantity," "ratio," and "votes." As I am sure you'll agree, this is the only feasible way of determining the outcome of a debate, especially one that takes place online. I'll have to insist that you provide a closing rationale if you intend not to reopen the discussion; please make sure that the rationale is compatible with the WP:CONSENSUS policy and focuses on the quality of the arguments presented "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" rather than the quantity of votes in favor/against endorsing/overturning the decision under review.
As a loosely related side note, which constitutes only a personal observation of mine that I believe may be of some interest to you, if you look at the RfD discussion whose closure was under review, you'll notice that three out of its four participants were in favor of deleting the redirect; if we were to analyze that closure through the prism of your above reasoning, we'd inevitably reach the conclusion that the "no consensus" closure was erroneous as it was "unanimously" agreed upon that the redirect should be deleted, with only one person opposing that outcome. The discrepancy between the two closures exemplifies what happens when discussions are closed in a manner incompatible with either the letter or the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS; in one case, a single WP:ITSUSEFUL vote was deemed sufficient to break a very strong consensus based on multiple policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, whereas in the other, the fact that only one person voiced an opinion contrary to that of the majority was deemed sufficient to have all of that single person's arguments summarily discarded solely because of their common origin. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I just re-read the DRV. I'm sorry, but this really looks like you're wiki-lawyering an extremely minor point, for no logical reason that I can discern. I decline to reopen the review or to update my closing statement. I think you need to move on to something else -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding one of your recent closures. The thread is WP:AN#Plowback retained earnings DRV closure review request. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Weight of Chains 2

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Weight of Chains 2. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. UrbanVillager (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just instructed at the Administrator Incidents page to discuss the matter with you first, before opening a deletion review. I apologize. What are your thoughts on the matter? If you agree with reinstating the article with the expanded content and reliable sources, should I delete the review? Either way, I'm a bit confused how this works, so please let me know. All the best, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
HI. Deletion Review is a formal process that's really only needed when the proposed action requires an administrator to implement (i.e. deleting or undeleting an article), or when somebody wants to protest how a AfD discussion was closed. In a case like this, the redirected title isn't protected, so any editor has the ability to un-do the redirection (as you discovered). But, as you also discovered, people may not agree with your action. So, the best thing to do would be to start a discussion at Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains, proposing to split WoC-2 back out into its own article and what you feel has changed over time which makes the AfD result no longer valid. If you get people agreeing with you, go ahead and do it. It's much the same discussion that would go on at Deletion Review, but a lot less formal. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. I know the process here can sometimes seem a bit clunky and confusing! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirby Delauter

Roy, I think you made a mistake on this close. Every single person who commented on the draft (5 folks I believe) felt it should be put into mainspace and no one objected. In any case, is your close to be read that the draft is not acceptable (and could be speedied as a recreation) or is it legit to put it into article space and expect to have an actual AfD (if anyone is wanting to delete it)? Did you read the draft? It clearly meets the letter of WP:N and no one so far has felt it has a BLP issue (1E or otherwise). Hobit (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion. To answer your question, though, I looked briefly at the draft but did not read it in detail. My role here is not to evaluate the article or the draft, but to summarize the discussion. I could see an argument being made that there really wasn't any consensus at all, but a no consensus finding would have the same ultimate result, so it hardly seems worth agonizing over the distinction. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure there was a consensus for salting? Your distillation doesn't read like that. The only person possibly favouring the salting aspect was Cryptic whose comment was too cryptic for me! After Cunard produced his draft the only "endorse" also went on and specifically said a new draft should be allowed. And even Sarek, who continued arguing for deletion, seemed to agree some aspects were involved where discussion was appropriate. Maybe look at the draft carefully and see if you are sure there are policy-based reasons for not allowing it to be discussed? People's reaction to the draft is surely a part of the DRV discussion for the closer to consider? Thincat (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Thincat: My point was that protection from creation in this case (as in many others) merely encourages people to create the article somewhere else, say at Kirby Q. Delauter, where it would go unnoticed. If protection had to be used, creating a redirect to another article and protecting the redirect instead would concentrate the drive-by edits somewhere we'd be able to see and, if necessary, remove them. —Cryptic 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I certainly agree that is sensible to avoid recreation under a variety of different titles. Thincat (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a single person claimed the draft wasn't acceptable once it was produced. At a minimum I'd say that means we should have a discussion to see if anyone does object to the draft. It seems the wrong way forward to not allow something that 5 people supported and no one objected to. Hobit (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. I think I made the right call. However, if you feel that I didn't, I won't be offended if you ask for a review of my close somewhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest a first step might be to go to DRV with a request that the draft be allowed to be moved to main space. I wonder how Cunard feels about that? A request might, I suppose, be closed down as a disruptive nomination. I am also pinging Floquenbeam who may presumably think the draft should be speedy deleted (at any rate as soon as it has been moved) and WilyD who opened the DRV. Should I be pinging everyone else? Regardless of the merits of this particular topic there is a policy question as to what extent BLP1E should become a speedy deletion criterion. I suppose WT:CSD is the best place for that. Maybe not to have both discussions at once. Thoughts? Thincat (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Linking for convenience: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter. Thincat (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Roy, I understand you feel you made the right call, but I am a bit frustrated that you aren't explaining your reasoning behind not allowing the restoration of a draft that everyone who commented on (5 people I think) was comfortable with. Could you please address that particular issue? It's going to be relevant to whatever the next discussion is. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer most of those questions, other than to agree that if you do continue this somewhere, then pinging all the DRV participants would indeed be a good idea. I also agree that starting two parallel discussions at the same time would not be the best plan. Pick a forum and discuss it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
As the DRV closer, you must be able to answer Hobit's question if you're concluding that the DRV prohibits the draft from being moved to mainspace. Otherwise, you should say that your DRV close does not have that prohibition since you are unable to explain that part. How can your DRV close be reviewed without your answering Hobit's question? Reviewers will not know your rationale for maintaining salting. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This is starting to get silly. The answer to Hobit's question is that as I read through all the comments, it was my estimation that most people felt that not only was the speedy deletion the right thing to do, but so was salting the title. I did not see anything in the comments after the new draft was introduced which convinced me that the consensus changed. Really, that's as much as I'm going to say on this. I understand you do not agree with my close. That's OK. You probably won't find my answer to Hobit's question satisfying, but that's OK as well. If you want to pursue this further, go start a discussion somewhere asking to overturn my close. I'm OK with that too. And, no, I don't know where the best place for that discussion is, nor am I going to get involved in it. If the result of that discussion is that my close gets overturned, I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is getting dragged into a long drawn-out argument about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion and feel very strongly that the draft should be restored. It was a well written article and met all the standards for inclusion. Next time, I'll be more emphatic in my comments. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Where for review

Hi folks, I think the two places to go for a review are DRV and AN. There is a history of both happening. I think our goal should be to get as many uninvolved people to look at this and see if they agree with the close, so I'd argue AN is the better place. I'd say a link to that discussion at CSD's talk page and the DRV in question would be reasonable. Anyone have a plan they like better? Hobit (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:AN sounds good to me since it will have more uninvolved people.

    I agree with Thincat and Hobit that Roy's DRV close did not discuss why consensus was against restoring the draft that at least five editors reviewed and were comfortable with and no one objected to. The decision to endorse Floquenbeam's speedy deletion is within discretion and reasonable but the decision to maintain salting and bar the draft's creation has no basis in the discussion.

    I agree with Thincat that "A request might, I suppose, be closed down as a disruptive nomination". RoySmith, the best way to resolve this is for you to open an WP:AN post seeking review of whether the draft can be moved to mainspace. Would you consider doing that? Cunard (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. No, sorry. I've already stated that I have no objection to further review, but this is your battle, not mine. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

whack-a-mole

Take a quick look at this, and then stroll along memory lane I mean revisit the unintended hilarity here (note all the blather about "proud past alumni" and religious/mystical Deep Thought) ... and then this dehancement (as if it weren't bad enough already), and this list of "contributions". Urgghhh. I really ought to take several swings with my administrative cattle prod, but sorry, no: it's past my bedtime. Good night! -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Weight of Chains 2 */ discretionary sanctions

As you may be the editor closing the current deletion review on 'The Weight of Chains 2', I am drawing your attention to the fact that ALL Malagurski's political films are currently subject to discretionary sanctions. It might be prudent to extend those to this new film as well. I left a post here:[2]. Thanks.Pincrete (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I closed the AfD that's being reviewed. It would not be appropriate for me to close the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Undo deletion Piet-Hein Out page

The page of Piet-Hein Out as a circus photographer was deleted. When I read the reasons given why this appears to be mainly due to sources which somehow are decided to be not ok. However due to an exhibit of a part of Out’s circus poster collection at the Dutch Poster Museum there are several new sources addressing him as one of Europe’s best circus photographers:

http://www.weekbladzondag.nl/5462/circusfotograaf-en-affiche-verzamelaar.html (= Dutch newspaper)

http://www.mooihoorn.nl/uitgelicht// (website for the promotion of the city Hoorn where the circus poster exhibit is taking place).

And even the website about Dutch Circus Culture call him one of the best European circus photographers: http://www.circuscultuurnederland.nl/nationaal-circus-jaar/komt-dat-zien-circus-affiches/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zirkusfan (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Editør:. @LaMona: and @Taketa:, all of whom participated in the original AfD for opinions on whether these new references change your minds about the AfD result. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, those last two are minor local websites that cite the director talking about his own circus and his own personnel. These sources are not significant, not neutral and do not go deeply into the subject, but instead only mention him. As such these sources do not change my mind on the notability of the topic. The free newspaper for the west part of a province is better, but also does not convince. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the Weekbladzondag article is a step in the right direction to establish notability, although it doesn't do so on its own. Hang on to that one! I agree with Taketa that the others are not significant. It's great that you are following this closely, and hopefully exhibits like this one will result in more attention to the subject. Sometimes it just takes time before a person becomes well-enough known. LaMona (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Zirkusfan: it doesn't sound like there's any support for recreating this article based on the references you presented. My recommendation would be to study our notability guidelines and keep looking for the kind of high-quality references which would meet those guidelines. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask, and thanks for contributing! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Editør:. @LaMona: and @Taketa: The circuscultuurnederland website is not at all a local site. Neither is it a circus owner. It is the site of the Dutch foundation to promote the Dutch Circus Culture in the entire country. So it is in my opinion the most valuable of sources if a foundation that promotes circus art in Holland actually also claims that Out is one of Europe's best circus photographers.Zirkusfan

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech

Minor note on Ankit Love close

No issue with close. Just want to note I am User:Jbhunley not User:JBH. Maybe it is time to change my sig. I started using it before I knew of the stale user. JBH (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just how exactly was oversight required for the AFD? It's the first time I can recall oversight being used as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I mis-interpreted the comment, The personal material has been suppressed bu WP:OVERSIGHT. I suppose that means material in the article, not in the AfD. Whatever. Doesn't really change anything -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

On the reversion of edits to the Transhumanist Party main article

Hi RoySmith,

I would like to inform you of an issue that is ensuing with a page in the main article namespace. As it becomes more controversial and triggers larger discussion, it should be brought to the attention of administrators and higher-ranked individuals on Wikipedia.

In November 2014, the article "Transhumanist Party" was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party. A long discussion about its notability can be viewed at that page, resulting in the decision to replace the page with a redirect to a section of Zoltan Istvan's page, the founder and chairman of the party. The stated reason was that the article was too dependent on primary sources, and they couldn't confirm that it was "real".

After over 3 months of the party's publicity and media coverage, as well as work being done to Draft:Transhumanist Party to add those references and new information being made publicly available, the page was restored. Within hours, the user Dsprc, who was in favor of removing the page the first time, came and removed it again, even though the reference situation had been ameliorated and the party's website was also functional and provided more information and news stories.

Zoltan Istvan is now planning on writing a series of articles that will be published on national news media challenging Wikipedia and the users involved in keeping down the Transhumanist Party article. Among the subjects of these articles are users Dsprc, Stalwart111, Philosopher, their actions, and Wikipedia executive staff. Wikipedia's failure to support an article on this notable political party will not go unnoticed. In the meantime, the page will be properly restored so it can be seen by and improved by users and the public, as there is no doubt that it deserves its page on The Free Encyclopedia for people to see. Nobody is against making the page better, and there will be new additions and references all the time; the party's news coverage is consistently growing, and maybe its Wikipedia page's will soon too.

I hope you can be of help to Wikipedia and the Transhumanist Party by appropriately keeping up this article for the public so conflict does not become more severe.

Thanks, Mechanic1c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanic1c (talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Rangnath Devasthan

Is this a hoax article? The article on Divya Desam does not even mention any "Rangnath Devasthan," and the only source given was the places' website. From what I'm looking in search engines right now, there's nothing really definitive or reliable. This might fly under WP:PROD but I'm not entirely sure. What's your take on this? Aerospeed (Talk) 14:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Hi RoySmith,

Thank you for your comment on the deletion review I posted on 10th March for the Gladstone (Humorist) article. With your comment, the 2 preceding, as well as my original post all advising to return to draftspace, this amounts to more of a consensus than the decision to delete.

Do you know if these deletion review logs are always closed out or if they can sort of be left hanging without a resolution? I don't wish to be pushy, but I also don't wish to let the whole thing lapse if I should be doing more. The only reason I ask you is because I'm very new to the Wikipedia community and really have no idea how best to proceed (if indeed there are any further steps for me to take).

Any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you StrictlyGenteel (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The review period is typically 7 days, but sometimes things get left hanging longer than that if nobody gets around to closing it. A few extra days is not unusual. The process is that some uninvolved admin will summarize the debate and write up a closing statement. There's nothing further you need to do, but if you have any other question, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I see, this makes sense; I will wait for the process to run its course. Thank you so much for your help.

StrictlyGenteel (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Allameh Tabatabai Management School

Dear Roy, Please don't delete the page for "Allameh Tabatabai Management School", I posted a note on the talk page of that article, the name of this school changed several times and so, you can't find many information about itin english on the web. User: shj369 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shj369 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted by a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allameh Tabatabai Management School. It wasn't my decision, I just carried out the consensus formed by the people discussing the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Too bright

Hey buddy!

Hey Roy: You should change the chili pepper image on your user page to something else, because it's too bright. It's like I have to put on sunglasses whenever I view your user page. What's up with that? North America1000 03:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you clicked on the Rogue-o-meter link? -- RoySmith (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The checkboxes don't work...North America1000 12:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That's because you're still only a member of the cabal, JG. Maybe, if you use your mop wisely, they'll be enabled for you some day. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Now I see. North America1000 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

2 AFDs that may not have been "filed" properly - can you help?

Hi! I see you sometimes work on closing AFDs and was wondering if you could help me out with a possible syntax problem (I don't even know if that's the right terminology). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day & Night (EP) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyes (EP) have a weird format at WP:KO-DEL and I actually can't find them at all at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 27, so I think there may have been a mistake during the "filing" process (it wasn't me). Would you mind taking a look and possibly fixing whatever might be broken? I don't know the normal process in a case like this. Many thanks for any help! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed

– North America1000 02:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you both, RoySmith and Northamerica1000!! Shinyang-i (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Peavey electronics eorporation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peavey electronics eorporation. Since you had some involvement with the Peavey electronics eorporation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Restoring State of the Future?

Somebody contacted me, and apparently also @Sphilbrick:, by email this morning, requesting that I restore State of the Future. In general, such conversations are better on-wiki. If it was you, please ping me here so we can discuss it. Thanks -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I see this goes with the thread at User_talk:Sphilbrick#Restoration_of_the_deleted_article. I'll respond there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello RoySmith,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I was never able to take advantage of this. It's been a while, so I've gotten some of the details, but I went to their website, attempted to follow the instructions I was given to set up an account, and never managed to activate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4#Convoy of Hope

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4#Convoy of Hope, Nick-D (talk · contribs) and Stifle (talk · contribs) supported deletion, while Thincat (talk · contribs), Stalwart111 (talk · contribs), FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs), and I believed the draft could be used if an established editor (I) took responsibility for it.

Your closing statement "It's possible that the topic is OK, but not this draft, by this editor. Based on that, I'm going to let the salting stand" does not reflect the consensus in the discussion. Please either unsalt the article or strike that portion of your close so an admin at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection can unsalt it. This will allow me to move BeenAroundAWhile (talk · contribs)'s draft User:BeenAroundAWhile/Sandbox4 to Convoy of Hope. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roy, your reading certainly reflects initial consensus - not sure that you saw that it was the same editors who later came back and agreed on a way forward, not a different group. Perhaps a couple of us should have struck our initial bolded !votes but we didn't actually change our views (per see), we just agreed on alternate (compromise) path. Any chance you'd be willing to remove protection on that basis? St★lwart111 00:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have amending my closing statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure that actually helps much. Most of those who advocated for retention of protection then formally or informally change their view to support the compromise solution outlined by Cunard. Most of the support for protection was based on BAAW's original comment, which was later clarified and (mostly) accepted. At least two of those who participated are admins but it seems overly bureaucratic to seek their help to overturn something you accept you might have "erred" in closing. Do we really need this at WP:AN to find an uninvolved admin? St★lwart111 03:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought no consensus was OK (I would have entirely disregarded the nominator's opinion as being too conflicted). There is always a problem with how to treat earlier unchanged !votes when there is a radical change during a discussion. Also, in this case, as recently, we are left wondering about the salting and what DRV thought about it, if it was a matter for DRV at all. I satisfied myself that Convoy of Hope is rather definitely notable (though I'd never heard of it) so in many ways we "should" have an article but the problem is how to start. I was willing to support Cunard's offer. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm finding it difficult to fully separate my clerical task of summarizing the discussion from my own feelings. I think it would be useful to have an uninvolved admin make the final decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the draft to mainspace after the article was unsalted by HJ Mitchell. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Clonazolam, Flubromazolam, Deschloroetizolam

Can you restore the full history and talk page those pages, but maintain redirect? I think these are eventually going to find articles given our history with chemicals, preserving history helps if someone decides to work on it. Valoem talk contrib 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

May I request you for an RfC close?

May I request you for an RfC close? I want to make sure this is not considered canvassing or policy violation. I see you have excellent judgment in terms of determining what passes GNG without inherent bias, could you take a look at a specific subject? Valoem talk contrib 02:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, what's the discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy, Just a sidenote, I believe BusterD assessed the situation that Coffee had opened this as a RfC acting in the capacity of an AfD, so there question becomes whether there was ever consensus to delete the subject. If the outcome does favor me, I still have a few more updates regarding title changes to fix. Valoem talk contrib 17:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. That's a lot of material to wade through. I'm afraid I don't have the spare cycles right now to take on something which requires that large a time commitment, so I'm going to have to pass on this one. My apologies for saying yes before I knew what I was getting into. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem! :) Valoem talk contrib 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Valoem (talk · contribs), I have listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nim DRV

In closing this as no consensus, can you please strike the clearly false claim that Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified) from the closing remarks? Msnicki (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on your thinking, please? I can appreciate that most of those !voting in the DRV expressed no opinion either way on whether the claim was true, but the discussion that did address the point clearly demonstrated it's not true. Msnicki (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's my job as a debate closer to summarize what other people said. My summary is that people couldn't agree. What you're asking me to do is change that to, people couldn't agree, but I'm going to cherry-pick this one item and overturn it anyway. I can't do that, sorry. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm asking for one claim to be struck, leaving the no consensus endorsed. If indeed everyone agreed there were four sources that contributed to nobility, it should have been closed keep. The closing admin has made a misstatement of fact that's independent of calling the outcome. The proof is there that he was wrong.
The reason this matters is because it seems likely there will be a new AfD in a few months as recommended by several participants in the DRV. At that point, it seems reasonable that many editors may briefly review the record of previous AfDs. This one was long and contentious and many may never read beyond the headlines, the closing admin's claim that everyone agreed there were four sources contributing to notability. That biases the next discussion.
Again, to be clear, I am not questioning your decision to call this as no consensus for overturning the no consensus at AfD. I am asking you to concede that that one statement in the close was discussed and clearly demonstrated to be false, both logically and factually. The only one who even tried to argue (completely illogically) that the claim was true was the admin who'd made it. The claim found no other support whatsoever and it also directly challenged by one other editor. I'm asking you to agree that striking this claim, exactly as requested and discussed in the DRV, is a fair part of the outcome. Msnicki (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you drop the WP:STICK and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A fine example of WP:ADMINACCT, showing deep commitment to discussing your decisions. Thank you for your clarity. Msnicki (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes. No consensus about whether or not there had been no consensus but with a sentiment that there had been no consensus! Thincat (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe I agree with that, and maybe I don't. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with this RfC

  • I was wondering if I could request you to reclose a merge discussion with JzG (talk · contribs) permission's on his talk page. The close regards this discussion Guy admitted some reasonable bias in his close, but did not mind if another neutral admin closed differently. I feel their was no consensus to merge biased on the discussion and DGG's arguments regarding significant coverage in the NYTimes is persuasive. There was also DRV opened in regard to this, the AfD and merge discussion caused confusion. Do you think it is reasonable to close as no consensus and relist the article? If you agree with Guy's close no action needs to be taken, but if you agree with me it should be uncontroversial to relist as closing admin has given permission to do so. Valoem talk contrib 02:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Odd that leaving it a while doesn't seem to be an option for you. Guy (Help!) 06:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my. I can't believe this is still going on. My suggestion to everybody involved is to take a deep breath, read WP:STICK, and move on to something else. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I feel that you are a reasonable and rational person, given this here is my logical breakdown why the most vital time to retain this article is now not three month down the road. Currently this person is receiving intense continuous coverage participating editors are most likely to expand this article when the event is ongoing, so the true growth potential is maximized now. The optimal way to handle this is expansion for the current year and reevaluation in the future. I hope you agree, but I will gladly listen to opposition. Valoem talk contrib 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to have this conversation with JzG, could you please do it on his talk page, or someplace else other than my talk page? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done Valoem talk contrib 16:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that Valoem does not like the answer so is going to keep asking until he gets the only one he does like. I'm not playing that game. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Still AfD-tagged

Hi RS: The following are still AfD tagged despite your recent close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tool libraries in Canada.

Just a heads up. Cheers, North America1000 00:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. The automated tools don't deal with multiple articles in one AfD very well. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed the AfD templates from the articles you specified to keep in the close, and added the oldafdfull template to their talk pages. FYI, this can be done manually, in case you weren't aware of this. Cheers, North America1000 03:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that for me. I've become very dependent on the automated tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Dairese Gary

Could you restore Dairese Gary at User:Editorofthewiki/Dairese Gary? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please restore Gary's article to draft space? User:Spartaz has deleted and protected the article from recreation, even though User:Ged UK decided that a speedy deletion did not apply. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
At this point, I'm just going to let the DRV continue to it's conclusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_8&oldid=1136146548"