User talk:RoySmith/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Florida Capitol Police

Redirecting? Fine. Redirecting while losing all the information from the original article? Why? Is this really an improvement to Wikipedia? This was my original objection to the proposer. You've just ignored all the arguments to preserve the information and done exactly the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added the info to the FDLE article, but it should have been done when the article was redirected. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looked to me like redirect was favored over merge, but whatever. You're certainly free to edit the article and add information, which I guess you already did. That's fine. @Cunard: @Drmies: perhaps I interpreted your Merge/Redirect comments incorrectly? I assumed you both meant, either merge or redirect, but maybe in retrospect what you meant was merge, and then leave a redirect behind? BTW, @Necrothesp: it really helps me out on my talk page if you leave a link to the AfD in question. Making it easier for me to find it makes it easier for me to help you. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Capitol Police. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't understand the problem here. Comments by Cunard and me should indicate clearly what we think should be happening: redirect with no prejudice to recreation, meaning don't delete the content in case the next editor blah blah blah. At least, that's how I've been reading AfDs for years. If folks want content deleted, they usually say "delete and redirect" or something like that. So Roy, as far as I'm concerned, you read all of this right. Now, Necrothesp's contention, which they've been saying for years, is "oh no a redirect is really a sneaky way of actually deleting", which is nonsense if the earlier content is not deleted. And Necrothesp's complaint here is that the closing admin didn't merge any of the contents--well, you don't need an admin to merge (some of) that content. Admins close discussions and delete stuff, but admins aren't required, as far as I know, to follow up by merging and selecting and editing whatever content is deemed appropriated to keep in the target article.

  What I find disappointing is that Necrothesp simply copied everything from the old article into the new, including some really trite information, and disregarded the problem noted in the AfD, that the article is unsourced--but that same AfD has two good sources in it. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure you're read me aright. I'm not objecting to the redirect. I'm also not aware I've been saying any of this for years. News to me. Are you maybe thinking of someone else? My comments were just in relation to this specific article. Yes, the info certainly needs some editing, but merging it is a start. It certainly shouldn't just be deleted. Not being notable enough for its own article is one thing; completely deleting all the information on a state agency is entirely another. This was the original problem with the nominator's actions and it's something he does far too often. As to an admin not being responsible for merging info from an article they redirect, I certainly don't agree with this (and I speak as an admin). You can't just redirect and leave it to someone else to do the merge. That's effectively deleting the info. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• My "merge/redirect" comment means I support selectively merging any content in Florida Capitol Police that can be sourced to reliable sources and is not undue weight to Florida Department of Law Enforcement. I think a "redirect" close that preserves the history is within discretion given the comments in the discussion (two editors supported redirecting and didn't mention merging). A "merge" close like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Gray where an {{Afd-merge to}} was added to the article is also within discretion. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cities_spanning_more_than_one_continent

This seems to be a case in which a deletion result was manufactured: From what I can tell (lacking history, since robots.txt precludes archival of history on archive.org), a vandal removed most of the content, and everyone voted based on this version, so it was unanimously decided as "delete" without debate. I've found this article useful in the past and am disappointed to see it gone, especially without due process. It's unclear whether you realized this before closing out the debate. Calbaer (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the article history, it seems like most of the deletions were due to unsourced statements. So, the assertion that the deletion was done by a vandal seems like a stretch (as does your statement that it was deleted without due process). But, if you ping the AfD participants to this page, and get any sort of support from them, I'll be happy to open a deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You cite the article history; how do I see article history? As I indicated, my statement that it seemed like the judged version of the page was a vandalized one isn't based on history since I can't see it; it's based on the discussion (which notes that it's silly to have a list page with one entry, something certainly not reflected by those versions available on archive.org). Calbaer (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the article (and its history) is deleted, so it's not visible to non-admins. But, like I said, from what I can see of the history, there's no evidence the other entries were removed by vandals. It looks like they were removed because they were unsourced. Like I said, if you would ping the AfD participants and there's some support amongst them for your position, I'll be happy to open a deletion review (and, restore the article, and its history, for the duration of the review). Or, you can start on yourself, but based on what I see, it's unlikely to go anywhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, RoySmith. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vinylz

Hi, the AFD for the above article was started by an ip, is that allowed? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes it is. But, there are some technical issues to making the nomination. See WP:AFDHOW. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A thank you for keeping List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair

thanks for keeping the page. Christianjoe94 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Roy, Just came by to say thanks for closing the DRV and for taking everyones comments on board, Ofcourse I don't entirely agree with the outcome but hey that's life but anyway just wanted to say thanks for closing it and thanks for all your contributions here aswell, Have a great day, –Davey2010^Talk 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

AFD closing

Hello RoySmith, This is regarding your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair as "Keep". Although I see you have been thanked for this I saw that 10 editors weighed in to delete and 4 for keep. I see problems that are insurmountable concerning WP:N (you have even mentioned WP:N on your talk page), especially since 6 of the references are from one source, one is trivia, and only one provided by an editor has some mention concerning some of the subjects in the article. The entire first paragraph is not cited in the references so is WP:OR, and using the reference is WP:SYNTH since it does not provide any corroboration to what is in the article, other than Malcolm Turnbull either being fond of beards or having a fetish, but this is conjecture since the references places the entire perspective as a question. The addition of this name and reference introduces WP:BLP criteria. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people gives guidance for inclusion of people on a list, as does Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people. There is nothing in the Andrew Fisher article or reference, other than pictures. In fact two references I saw mentioned facial hair at all. At best we have pictures being used to prove notability.

Does the article belong on Wikipedia? That is the question and you have decided yes against overwhelming consensus to the contrary. There is one source providing information (6 references), one source with nothing towards notability of the subject, and one source that does mention certain subjects in the article. This does not provide instances of multiple independent sources proving notability. There is a "major" problem with the fact that each entry from the single source is a biography of individuals, a couple making mention of beards, mustaches, or other facial hair on the subjects. Read the referenced biography of Billy Hughes then read the article.

There was consensus, a super majority, that !voted to delete. There is the other article List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair that you deem to give precedence for inclusion. Notability is not inherited. Each article must stand on it's own merit, and notability is fundamental, and a "precedence" in any other direction should be stopped by admins.

To me, in closing and stating that "Most of the delete arguments are emotional", when there was a supermajority consensus, is far-fetched reasoning to discount their !vote, even adding that policies and guidelines were not expressly provided and linked to. The policy that admins should follow concerning WP:CONSENSUS is WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, that states, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.". This does not mean that comments not explicitly providing direct links to policies and guidelines are to be discounted but comments contrary to these policies and guidelines. When an editor comments, 1)- "To justify this list we would have to show that the generalized topic, and not just its specific manifestation, is worth noting. That is that there is some caring beyond trivia weather a state leader is clean shaven or not.", is not against policy, in fact supported by WP:N (worth noting) and WP:TRIVIA. 2)- "Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content.", does not need an explanation of WP:NOT, 3)- WP:LISTCRUFT is self-explanatory, 4)- "There might be an article about it for American Presidents, but that doesn't mean that this one should be kept either." WP:OTHERSTUFF, and 5)- "collection of indiscriminate information, not a notable topic per references in article.", WP:INDISCRIMINATE, part of the WP:Five pillars, and WP:N #1 (WP:GNG; significant coverage in reliable sources) and #2. This policy also states, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.".

A recap: We have a couple of references (biographies) that mention facial hair on Prime Ministers of Australia along with four others that are just plain biographies. One reference is just about a current Prime Minister that may or may not have a "thing" for facial hair (that does not have any), and a reference provided by an editor that is only a photo gallery with some captions. Watkin, Deakin, Cook, and Fisher are listed. I can not imagine, unless invoking WP:IGNORE that upon close inspection, that there is notability to keep this article.

WP:GNG states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.", yet you chose to conclude that a supermajority consensus of 10 did not provide adequate rationale to support their decision for delete over 4 for keep.

I feel an obligation, not only to Wikipedia but to other editors, to see if you will re-examine your decision. Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As you mentioned, this isn't about counting votes. As I looked at the arguments to delete, I found many such as This is a joke, right, I don't see how this article should be kept, and Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content, none of which express any policy-based reason. I was also particularly unimpressed with the arguments (two, I think) that everybody has facial hair. It's pretty clear the inclusion criteria is not the biological existence of follicles, but whether the person chose to shave or to groom a beard/mustache. Once you get rid of those arguments, the head count is much closer. But, what it came down to was the list of sources presented, and I didn't see anybody making cogent arguments why those sources were not acceptable. So, after review, I stand by my close. If you feel strongly about the issue, I would have no objection to you bringing this back to AfD for another look, or even asking for a review. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Symantec Endpoint protection Help

I found the page with the promotional links Symantec Endpoint Protection and it was kept for long time in Wikipedia & it is also nominated for deletion several times. I would like to nominate the page again for the deletion, would you please help me on proceeding with this. I've recently updated deletion request for the page "McAfee Endpoint Protection" & it is removed now. I wish to do the same for this page to Wikipedia more clear out of promotional stuff. (WikiGopi (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC))

Done. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symantec Endpoint Protection (2nd nomination). -- RoySmith (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you RoySmith for helping me on this. (WikiGopi (talk) 11

29, 20 October 2016 (UTC))

Kumawat

Yes, I wanted the deleted revisions restored[1]. How is that not clear? I could, of course, have simply pasted the deleted material back in, but that would have lost the attribution. I am really struggling with why people think DRV is the wrong venue for this. I am asking for restoration of material deleted by (in my opinion) a misconceived AFD. Both the alternative suggested venues are unsuitable; WP:UNDELETE because a page that has been through AFD is clearly not an uncontroversial undeletion, and WP:BOLD because that would be in CSD G4 territory, to say nothing of WP:WHEELing with the AFD closing admin. SpinningSpark 16:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Chill a little :-) Most of the confusion on my part was when you wrote believe that this version of the page should be restored., the link you left didn't go anywhere useful; it just takes me to Search Deleted Pages. But, in any case, I've restored the deleted revisions now. Happy editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about the link. I don't know how that happened, pity someone didn't mention it during the debate so I could fix it. Thanks for restoring. SpinningSpark 18:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sady Doyle deletion

The article on Sady Doyle was deleted (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sady_Doyle ) in August 2016 but the discussion inaccurately assessed the subject's body of work. The delete discussion didn't accurately describe the volume of her writing, such as in the Guardian, but only noted her writing in the Atlantic. Since the deletion, she also published a book which has been reviewed in notable outlets. Further, she was mentioned in the leaked Podesta emails as someone of importance to the Clinton campaign's messaging, and has been cited elsewhere as a "prominent feminist.". I think the article should be restored. Grisamentum (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Sady_Doyle -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello RoySmith:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi RoySmith.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RoySmith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD reopening Erika Schwartz

Hi RoySmith! I wanted to reopen the discussion around deleting the Erika Schwartz page that you moderated back in January - afd discussion here I wasn't sure if I should just add to the AfD discussion page, or if I should involve you again -- seeing as you know the history. There haven't been any valuable edits since the maintenance template was added in August. thanks for your help! Jsmith206 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The AfD was 9 months ago. That seems long enough that renominating it for a new discussion shouldn't require anything special. Just start a new AfD; the original AfD page should remain as it is, as a historical archive. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks RoySmith! Will do that now.Jsmith206 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting the following discussion be closed

Here's the link. Let me fill you in on what's been happening briefly. The discussion first started off as a concern raised by a user about me not using edit summaries, before it was promptly closed by Admin Jauerback. However, the discussion was later continued by another admin and things escalated really, really quickly to the point of having to impose a sanction/restriction on me to requiring the usage of edit summaries. I'll admit, I haven't been handling that properly because I sincerely thought that I was forced against my will. However, after much consideration, I have since started using edit summaries for big edits I make and AFDing. See here for proof. I've recently noticed that the discussion has escalated to a really toxic level (going as far as to attempt a TBan in the midst of attempting an already proposed sanction, for instance), and frankly, I think it's very, very unfair for anyone to impose two restrictions at the same time. Also, some people have been stating things that are quite honestly, irrelevant. Take my list of accomplishments, for instance. So is it so wrong that I list my own accomplishments now? Whether or not I want to put up my own deletion list is my own choice. It's not like it's offending anyone or anything. In any case, I hope that you could help me close the discussion, as I sincerely wish to contribute to the encyclopedia by erasing unneeded articles and expanding stub articles. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Afro engineering

Quick inquiry in regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro engineering. I'm willing to take up the task of merging the article, as I stated in the AfD, but I really think jury rigging is a better place. All the terms at list of ethnic slurs are derogatory nouns that refer to members of certain groups. In the case of the terms in question, they aren't used in that way (i.e. as nouns), one wouldn't use "afro engineer" or "nigger rigger" to refer to someone; they are used as adjectives (e.g. a "nigger rigged car") and verbs (e.g. "afro engineer the air conditioner").— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point from a pure grammar argument. As an AfD closer, I try to be as neutral as I can. What I saw here was a slight preference for the way I closed it, but I don't really have anything invested in that. Perhaps the best thing would be if you pinged the other AfD participants here and see what other people think. If the other participants in the AfD are OK with it, I have no objection myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. There was no consensus to merge, in my opinion. You tried to split the baby when only a few editors mentioned merging and the rest were pushing "keep" or "delete", as evidenced by your long statement explicating your logic. I think it would have been more honest to close as "no consensus" rather than supervote and call it "slight preference for the way I closed it". Chris Troutman (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess my advice to you is that same as I gave User:Godsy. I don't have anything invested in the outcome. There's a conversation going on at Talk:Afro engineering; I would suggest you participate in that and see if you can get people to agree on a course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've already done that. Good! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Question re: User Space

Hi. Thank you for moving "Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico"to User Space. Can you tell me how to move it out of User Space into Main Space when I am ready to do so? Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I know how I do it; there's a "More" menu at the top of the screen, with a "Move" item in it. But, to be honest, I can't remember if that's the default, or if it's a result of some fancy javascript package I installed. The official instructions are at Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page. Looking at that, it would appear that it matches what I've got, so I'm assuming the process you'll do is the same as what I'd do. As long as you're moving it to a title that's not protected, you shouldn't need any special permissions. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

School week

Your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School week indicates that further work is appropriate. Please could you userfy the page as a starting point for this. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There's really nothing there worth recovering. You'd do better starting from scratch. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello RoySmith: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Kelley

The close at WP:Articles for deletion/Katherine Kelley stipulates in effect that the sources pass GNG, and then denies that the discussion established notability.  There is no analysis of the weight of the !votes, all but one of which was posted before the sources were listed, and don't generally seem to provide a rationale for deletion.  As if that is not sufficient, the close then ignores WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion which states, "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."  No WP:IAR reason for disregarding this policy is provided.

This is an easy close, which is keep with reference made to WP:Editing policy for editors to express their viewpoints; and clarification that AfD is not a place for content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

wp:Articles_for_deletion/Karissa_Schweizer

I see that my improvements were not enough to retain the article, but could you restore it to my sandbox? I would like the opportunity to retain the additions assuming that she later becomes significant enough for notability. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather than hide it away in your personal sandbox, I think it makes more sense to just leave it where it is. At any point in the future, if additional sources emerge demonstrating notability, it's easy enough for any admin to restore the deleted article at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That certainly sounds reasonable enough. I would like, however, some way to remind myself to check in occasionally to see if the article can be improved enough to stand on its own merits. Is there an on-wiki way to do that without creating an article in draft or user space? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not aware of any automated reminder service in the wikipedia system. Maybe just create a "Things I want to do" section on your user page? BTW, the reason for wanting to keep the deleted article in mainspace is because if, at some point in the future, somebody else decides to create an article with that title, they'll get the "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted." message, which will facilitate and encourage the merging of the new and old material. If it's it your user space, nobody (except for you) will know it's there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. I hadn't considered that previously deleted message. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

On Cassandra Saturn Article 2015

i wanted to inform others who were on that article review to please read 172.58.40.180 (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Christina Keegan

At WP:Articles for deletion/Christina Keegan, there is no possibility of a policy basis for a deletion.  This is any easy close, which is keep and encourage the editors to use WP:Editing policy to express their viewpoints. 

After your refusal to explain yourself at diff, I left Wikipedia for a year.  Contrary to that closing, I never requested post-MfD userfication, because to do so was against the policy WP:CONSENSUS.  Policies are "widely accepted standards that all editors should normally follow". 

My next and only-subsequent DRV nomination you also speedy closed. 

Given your history of muting my DRV contributions, perhaps you should have at least enough respect to make more than perfunctory closes against policy of AfDs in which I have been active and am solidly representing policy.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the other people who offered opinions during the disucussion dind't agree with your point of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case no. 16CV300

Hello I am writing about an AfD Educational Service Workers that was deleted. I just add tons of verifiable coverage on the law, not the court case. Please check it out and reconsider! Thank you!

Hello, Please why did you close a different article without discussion time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebekahalnablack (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It appears you're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case no. 16CV300. The decision there was unanimous to delete the article. And, after closing the AfD, I realized that you had moved the article to a different title, which I've deleted as well. You stated in the AfD that you were both the creator of the article and the plaintiff. I strongly suggest you read our policy on Conflict Of Interest, as it clearly applies here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 31#Benjamin Franks

Hi Roy, while I cannot approve of your deletion of the article Benjamin Franks, I appreciate that your closure of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Franks was fair. I'm notifying you because I have nominated the recreated page at RFD; the discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 31#Benjamin Franks, and your contribution is welcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanessa Veracruz

I wasn't able to participate in this deletion review because the user who brought it there never notified me (feel free to check my talk page history for any such notification around that date). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. It is unfortunate (and contrary to protocol) that you weren't notified. But, looking at the discussion, the consensus was so overwhelming, it's hard to see how any argument you could have added would have made any difference in the final outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Amber Doig-Thorne

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that an article you previously deleted following an Articles for Deletion Discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Doig-Thorne has been recreated here. From memory, it appears to be substantially identical to the one that was deleted, although as I'm not an Admin I can't actually look & compare. If you wouldn't mind taking a look, that'd help - if it's not substantially the same as the deleted article, let me know and I'll remove my WP:G4 template from the article and take it to a 2nd AfD discussion instead. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like another admin already deleted it, but thanks for letting me know. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ramzi Maqdisi

Hi User:RoySmith, First, apologize because I am not so fluent in English as I am in Spanish. I am trying since last week to know why the sources are not good enough in Draft:Ramzi_Maqdisi and so far I had no response at all. The set of references included in this draft are from very important media around the globe. Even though now the discussion is closed, I do not see in the comments very reliable arguments and none of this comments are trying to response the most important question about the sources. I followed all the recommendations from help desk, teahouse and the nominator, but no one told me why the new sources are not good enough. I would really appreciate if you could give some advices, and how can I ask for more help to improve this draft with reliable sources following wikipedia policies. As one of the comments suggested, it will be a good point to have polyglot assistance, but I don't know where more asking for this assistance. I didn't edit the main article, the one is deleted right now, because what I understood while I was improving the draft, was that is not a good rule to do it, and when I asked the nominator if I had to do the same changes as in the draft, I had no response. Besides, I think some of the comments in Articles for deletion/Ramzi Maqdisi were not very adequate and did not treat the real point: the sources. I will really appreciate your thoughts. Thank you very much in advance and enjoy this new year's eve Parauleira (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No preocupe. Su Englés es muy mejor que mi Español :-) I am not an expert on the subject, but I think what you're looking for is WP:NACTOR. The problem seems to be that the films he has appeared in are not important enough, and the roles he played in those films are not major enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

not you...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen

How do I move Draft:Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen to mainspace?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend using Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Somebody will review the article and if it meets their approval, they will move it into mainspace for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filthy Frank

Sorry if I'm doing something wrong, but the instructions for a deletion review said to ask to talk to whoever deleted the page. I understand it might've not been you, but you carried out the result. Filthy Frank has for long been a notable person in YouTube. He also has a verified Twitter account. He recently released an album called Pink Season on digital platforms under the alias Pink Guy, which peaked #2 on the U.S. and #1 on many other countries. It is verified by a third-party. I think all of these warrant the reopening of his page, citing its YouTube popularity and the album he released. What steps should be done towards reapproval? Also, I'm sorry if I should not be referencing in a Talk page, or if the references are essentialy junk; I'm not sure what else I could reference besides the YouTube channel and the Spotify/Google Play/iTunes pages. Phaellow (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, like I said in the AfD, discounting comments from editors with little or no history on Wikipedia, there was a clear consensus to delete this. And, I do notice that your comments on my talk page are the only edits you've made to date as well :-). -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The album is very recent, though. I understand it's only digital, but isn't a multiple-country top charting album (on iTunes) worth of a Wikipedia page? It's also referenced in music media. Phaellow (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Adding a ref-catcher so they don't fall to the bottom of Roy's talkpage... 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith. I was going to start a new thread, but will add my comment here since this discussion it is relevant to Filthy Frank. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Filthy Frank#Concerns about the page's notability? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

request for WP:REFUND x3

File:Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg

  In Wikipedia,
  you feel Bern!  

References

File:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg

  In Soviet Russia,
  burn feels YOU!

References

Hello RoySmith, this related to an AfD you closed recently.

I am working with that underlying content still, on a related BLP draft (Draft:Oleg Atbashian). Can you please restore this deleted content:

• Communists for Kerry --> Draft:Communists for Kerry

And this deleted talkpage-content:

• Talk:Communists for Kerry --> Draft_talk:Communists for Kerry

Much appreciated. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading the AfD, the sentiment to delete was so strong, I'm not sure I'm comfortable undeleting this. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hard to disagree it was a strong sentiment, but it was also not really a policy-backed sentiment methinks. More of a "per nom" snowball, despite the sourcing being dramatically improved as time went by. Too much noise for the "sources exist" signal to get through, however, at that messy AfD thread. Per my very own WP:CRYSTAL ball, I don't really think that the *subtopic* of Communists for Kerry will get back into mainspace, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that the sources do exist for my suggestion of upmerging to a new parent-article at Oleg Atbashian#Communists for Kerry, see the preliminary source-digging results ordered best-to-worst. Switching from the event-article, to the BLP-article, roughly doubles the available WP:SOURCES in both depth and nose-count. Whether or not the SPA's connected to the subject-matter hang around as wikipedians any further -- the pain of having their freshly-hatched wiki-spirits crushed by a series of negative outcomes at AfD might have driven them all away for good -- personally I do plan to finish mainspacing that new BLP article, once I can get the sources organized properly. It will not be a coatrack, no worries on that front, I know how to stick to what the sources say  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: your comment over on my wp:refund request, appreciated but by no means necessary... it is very much NOT your fault that the request was declined-at-first-glance, and I expect it will be un-declined-eventually. WP:TIND applies... I'm quite sure that in fact your instruction to use WP:REFUND was perfectly correct, and the talkpage-notice there agrees with me on that correct-venue-point. But mine is an unusual scenario, and the template-based wizard for filing requests, basically *assumes* that 'undeletion to exactly where it came from' is what people that visit that noticeboard want, and if it was from AfD then they are in the wrong venue. I'm in the right venue, and I'm not in a hurry to get ahold of the CFK and Talk:CFK view-history-buttons. So no worries, please. Be that as it may, I do appreciate the note, thanks; if for whatever reason I cannot get userfication at wp:refund, then I will probably open a "deletion review" to ask for userfication of the stuff, which is silly since I more or less agree the close was correct! But per IAR, most likely the DELREV-watchers will help me, if the REFUND-watchers are unable to figure out what I want. Or maybe we will both be surprised, and the newly-reorganized sources will revert the perfectly-legit close, now that the signal has been stripped of noise? *That* seems unlikely to my wiki-eyeballs, CFK is right on that borderline where it got a coverage-burst in 2004 and then morphed into something different shortly afterwards, so although it might have WP:GNG, it metaphorically fails WP:BLP1E / WP:10, but who knows how the cookie crumbles? Wikipedia is funny some days, but it gets to the correct endpoint in the long run :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you feel like it I would additionally appreciate:

• Draft_talk:Comparison of Robotics Simulators --> Draft_talk:Comparison of Robotics Simulators incorrect...
• Draft_talk:Comparison_of_Robotic_Simulators --> Draft_talk:Comparison_of_Robotic_Simulators ...sorry, only one plural...

(Another admin already restored the previously-G13'd-draftspace-content to Draft:Comparison of Robotic Simulators for me, but forgot the talkpage-stuff.) Thanks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Talk:Comparison of Robotics Simulators, but it doesn't look like that ever existed. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I really did mean draft_talk but added an extraneous 's' by mistake, see correction above -- to my knowledge Comparison of Robotic Simulators was never mainspaced, it got stuck in the AfC tarpit and the creator eventually gave up, but one of the AfC regulars Timtrent left a comment, that there was once a page Draft_talk:Comparison_of_Robotic_Simulators, which they referenced in the AfC comment as being "must migrate" if memory serves, see the already-restored 2014 discussion at the top of Draft:Comparison of Robotic Simulators. I have recently run into a person that is a roboticist, and is currently an active wikipedian, so I'm planning on collaborating with them to get a rewrite of the 2014 stuff accomplished (sourced this time rather than WP:OR) and then achieve the move to mainspace. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I imagine there was some important material on that talk page. I tend only to refer to things such as that for a reason. I regret I cannot recall what was present. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long to respond. I've been kind of busy lately, and don't have time to look into this. If you ask on wp:refund, somebody should be able to help you. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is no trouble, still trying to grub up the sources needed prior to mainspacing either of the above draftprojects...

...and as usual WP:TIND plus WP:VOLUNTEERS applies to admins too  :-)

I will ask over there, thanks 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Restored article

Thanks for restoring Israel at the FIFA World Cup, can you also restore the talk page? - Galatz^Talk 14:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - Galatz^Talk 14:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you be able to move the following deleted pages into my user space so I can incorporate the lost information into the national team pages?

• Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup
• Israel at the 1954 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the 1986 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the UEFA European Championship
• Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship
• Israel at the EuroBasket
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women
• Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup
• Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup
• Israel at the European Championship of American football
• Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup
• Israel at the IIHF World Championship

Thanks - Galatz^Talk 15:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to do that, but my time is limited these days, so I'm not sure when I'll get you it. You'll probably get faster service if you ask on wp:anb. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I am about to log off for the wekend, so if you have a chance great, if not I will put in a request next week. Thanks again. - Galatz^Talk 20:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to merge the content, don't we have to preserve the edit history or something? How would we do that if the article's been deleted? Restore it and make it a redirect or something? Then Galatz could pull the content from the edit history or something and it wouldn't necessarily need to go in his userspace as well. Smartyllama (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: the process (repeated per-article, which is why it'll take a while) is to undelete the article, then move it to userspace, and then probably make some housekeeping edits like commenting-out category tags and the like. The end result is you end up with the full history of the article associated with the userspace version. You are correct to be concerned about preserving the proper attribution after that point to comply with our licensing. Please see Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete#History_fixing and Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete#Record_authorship_and_delete_history, which discuss two possible ways to accomplish that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Adama

Roy, I would like you to redo your close of Zak Adama and instead redirect the articles to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. While I appreciate that you counted !votes, I do not believe a delete !vote which does not address why WP:ATD-M ("Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear.") is inappropriate should be accorded equal weight as policy-congruent !votes. Further, there were only 7:6 for delete vs. keep, merge, or redirect, not 2:1 as you stated in the close. Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have clarified my closing statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's better than nothing, but that still leaves the non-notable content inaccessible for editors who want to merge it. Your close remains at odds with WP:ATD-M. More interestingly, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Calton. I don't see any other editors participating in the AfD who are socks... but there is one other IP address, who would not be identified as a match in a routine SPI. I believe the most policy-compliant course of action, assuming you still see a consensus to not retain the articles as standalone, would be to undelete each and then redirect them to the character list. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, but whatever. I've backed out my close and relisted the AfD. Somebody else can come along and reclose it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Roy: Just curious, any plans on restoring Zak Adama, Jack Fisk (Battlestar Galactica) and Tucker Clellan since you reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Adama? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Happy editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Cheon at deletion review

Hi RoySmith,

Would you perhaps consider relisting the deletion review of Paul Cheon to get more opinions on the redirect I proposed? While I agree that there was a consensus against the redirect that was initially proposed (and I'm also against that redirect), only SmokeyJoe commented on my proposed redirect, so I don't think there is a consensus on it yet. Calathan (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't generally relist DRVs. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. I don't think it is very important that a redirect be created, but I just don't want the deletion review to preclude someone proposing a different redirect in the future. However, I don't think I'm going to bother with proposing it somewhere else myself at this time. Calathan (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your well met suggestions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)