Jump to content

User talk:RoySmith/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Request to reconsider deletion of Alternative names of Crayola crayons

You closed this discussion and deleted the article despite a majority of the participants voting to keep the article or merge the contents into other articles, stating that there was "strong agreement" that the major source was unreliable, and therefore the page failed verifiability. But surely the reliability of a source, while a proper subject for AfD debates, needs to be determined based on Wikipedia policy, not a headcount of people who simply dislike the source. And this doesn't seem to have been the case. These are the reasons given, which for convenience I've grouped by whether they discussed the reliability of the source in question:

  1. Lojbanist, the AfD nominator, never addressed the reliability of the source or even participated in the discussion after making the nomination, simply calling it "listcruft".
  2. DanielRigal, who seconded all of Lojbanist's Crayola AfD's and was/is the main voice urging deletion in each case, began by stating that he wasn't "sure" how reliable it was; his initial arguments against the page were "pointless, indiscriminate... copyvio... spirit of plagiarism" and "unencyclopedic", to which he subsequently added "fancruft" and "indefensible".
  3. Carrite voted to merge, without discussing the sources.
  4. DGG voted to merge, alleging at the same time that the contents belonged on another wiki, not Wikipedia, and did not discuss the sources.
  5. 1|2|3k voted to merge per Carrite and DGG, without discussing the sources.
  6. TimTempleton voted to merge, without discussing the sources.
  7. The Gnome argued that there were no sources at all, the article was unencyclopedic, an "indiscriminate collection of stuff", and promotional. This editor did not acknowledge any sources and did not discuss their reliability, but did cite policy to warn me against replying to his post or anyone else's.
  8. Coolabahapple said that the subject was not notable, and that there were not enough sources, although some of the information could be merged into other articles; in reply to which I spent some time tracking down additional sources for what I could, and added several to the article. While Mr. Welter's article was still the most important source, the other sources cited corroborated his claims, in some cases citing him as the expert in the field. This editor never disputed the reliability of the main source.
  9. Daask simply alleged that the main source was unreliable, but did not give any reason.
  10. Ten Pound Hammer alleged that Mr. Welter's article was "a personal fansite" and therefore unreliable; this editor regarded the contents as trivial and suggested merging them into other articles.
  11. Ajf773 argued that the article fell afoul of WP:NOTCATALOGUE, and only subsequently argued that the primary source could be disregarded because it was a "blog", which it is not; then because it's self-published, and therefore unreliable by definition.

So, of eleven participants in the discussion other than myself, including the nominator, only three claimed that the primary source was unreliable, one of whom gave no reason, and the other two seem to have regarded it as sufficient to note that the source was self-published; neither addressed the expertise of the author, the methodology of the article, or the accuracy of its conclusions. WP's guidance for self-published sources states that they can be reliable when written by an expert in the field who is acknowledged by independent third-party sources. Neither Ajf773 nor anyone else ever attempted to refute that Mr. Welter's article, "The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola", was written by an expert in the field, or that his expertise was acknowledged and relied upon by independent and reliable third party sources, such as the Huffington Post, the Morning Call, or The Art of Crayon. Mr. Welter's article provides copious detail on how his data was compiled and analyzed, together with illustrations of the history he was documenting and comparing the different crayon colors under discussion. The merits of his research were never disputed by any participant in the deletion discussion. My contention is that a source giving every indication of reliability through adequate documentation of the process of research and analysis, accompanied by diagrams and other illustrations, regarded as expertise by independent and reliable sources, and apparently the most authoritative source that exists, should not be excluded as "unreliable" merely because some editors don't like it, without any discussion of its accuracy or methodology, or indeed any evidence that it is unreliable. Mr. Welter is acknowledged as an expert in his field; no independent source seems to dispute his expertise or the accuracy of his research; all we have are bare assertions by other editors that it must be unreliable and excluded, without any discussion of its expertise or accuracy. The article should not have been deleted on the grounds that a minority of editors simply argued to exclude a source, without basing their arguments on actual Wikipedia policy or discussing the merits of the source itself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Several people at the AfD urged you to take WP:BLUDGEON to heart. Please do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thrill of It All Tour closure

Hi Roy. Came across Talk:The Thrill of It All (Sam Smith album, a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thrill of It All Tour closure. Sam Sailor 23:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Yeah, I know what I did wrong. Thanks, I'll try to fix that up. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think I've got it back to where it should be. Please let me know if you see anything else.. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Merge and redirect outcomes at AFD are obviously only possible when a suitable target exist, so perhaps Evad could stick a target check into XFDcloser that issues a warning in case of a typo. Sam Sailor 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Audie_Award_Winners

Hi. I read your comments. The comments about the awards being simply industry self-promotion can be said about 95% of all awards. That doesn't mean the awards or their winners are not notable. The Audie Awards already have a general page explaining the background of the awards. That page is part of the the Wikiproject Awards and Prizes. This is a list of the winners of those awards and one of the criteria for notability is having won a significant award. As for it just being a list, yes, it is just a list. Like most list pages, it is simply an organized compilation of the information. Wikipedia considers that enough for the AVN Awards, the Manga awards, some nearly 100 pages of playboy lists, Archibald Prize winners, and countless others I haven't seen. Trying not to be crabby about it, but I am. SorrySJTatsu (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You're free to resubmit it. Other reviewers might have other opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Alternative names of Crayola crayons"

Greetings. In this AfD closing, you commented that "the strongest argument here [in favor of deletion] is essentially that this fails WP:V" which "nobody cited explicitly." Perhaps you did not notice my citation ("Entirely unsourced, non-encyclopaedic material," etc). No biggie, of course; just me being a stickler for accuracy. Keep up the good work. -The Gnome (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I had indeed missed that it linked to WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Page Emily_L._Spratt

I don’t understand why the Emily L. Spratt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_L._Spratt) page was deleted. There was an active conversation about whether the page should be deleted but it was not at all unanimous.RogerWilson (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I still don't agree with the decision, but I don't have a lot of experience on Wikipedia like you do.RogerWilson (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mfd template

My draft at Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick still has that Mfd template you placed and that template has been on for quite a while. So can you please tell me what you are going to do with that template. It also seems to me that the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick has already finished and Chrissymad already approves the draft.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't been closed yet. At some point, somebody will come along and close it, and then we'll find out what happens next. I don't know when that will happen. My guess would be sometime in the next couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
After a couple of days can you please leave a message on my talk page about what's going to happen with my draft because I want to be up to date on what's going on. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
What you should do is add the MfD discussion to your watchlist. If you're using the web client, look for the "star" icon in menu bar at the top and click on it. Then, anytime that page gets edited, you'll be able to see it by clicking on the "Watchlist" link at the very top of the page. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Dear RoySmith, refer to this AfD. The subject website has backlinks and sourcelinks on many RS sites. Examples are Dawn, UNESCO, UNODC and RT. I can provides many government officials website links that source subject sites. Is this enough to make subject site notable? if yes, please remove notability template from Subject Page.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I closed the AfD, but the notability template was placed by Saqib, so they're a better person to talk to about whether the notability concerns have been adequately addressed. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will consult Saqib on his talk page. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Hennie Bosman

Good day RoySmith

Citations adsinfo and own website has been removed. My apologies

Regards

User:Barry Ne 18.43, 16 June 2018(UTC)

Rushi-ing into things

Did you notice that the speedy tag on Draft:Vogeti Ramakrishnayya had been applied by Rushi1122334455 (talk · contribs) who created the page. I have just sent you two states of it. Since Rushi is disowning it for some reason, why don't you repost it and get the credit - I don't don't mind if I am not credited. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing that out. I was kind of wondering why you deleted it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

```` even i dont want any credits, of vogeti ramakrishnayya page. i am not actually trying to disow it but i am unable to make it accepted. so if you require then you can post it.i can give you the complete details if required. Rushi1122334455 (talk · contribs)

Mithaq Kazimi

Hi Roy, I have given my reasons why the page should stay, kindly review and hopefully it is sufficient this time around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Master (talk • contribs) 12:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Edwardx and Unknown Master: I looked at the current version, and compared it to the version deleted from the AfD I closed. I think this is a marginal G4 at best. WP:G4,excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. That applies here. On the other hand, I really doubt this would survive another AfD. This version really doesn't say anything the other one didn't, and the sources are pretty weak. Some (IMDB, Twitter, CrunchBase) are clearly not WP:RS. Most of the others don't excite me very much either. My recommendation is that this should be brought to AfD rather than G4. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 North American cold wave

How did you determine consensus to merge 2017–18 North American cold wave? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I'm not sure I understand the question. You were one of the people who supported merging at the AfD. But, to answer your question, I read all the commentary and came to the conclusion that the people arguing to merge has stronger arguments than the people arguing to keep. Even the nominator supported merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Reply - My first preference was Keep, but "If this article cannot be kept, it should be redirected". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2017–18 North American cold wave

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2017–18 North American cold wave. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Edward "Eddie" Fung entry

My entry about Eddie Fung was deleted because of copyright infringement. I don't think you realize that I am Eddie Fung's wife and the author/editor of his memoirs, The Adventures of Eddie Fung: Chinatown Kid, Texas Cowboy, Prisoner of War. My entry is a summary of the book that we wrote together and I made a point of citing the book only when I lifted quotes from it.

I have never seen the blog "American POWs of Japan" before, and I did not copy the Congressional Record statement by Senator Kamala Harris that I used in its entirety in my entry from this blog. I copied it from the original document that was presented to me at my husband's memorial service. And I cited the Congressional Record as the source.

The article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel is based on an interview with my husband and his book. Thus the similarity in coverage and there was one quote from the book that we both used. Again, I cited the book as the source.

My opening sentence is the same as the book description in my publisher, the University of Washington Press's web page as well as in the book jacket blurb. Since I helped to write that blurb and it appears in my book, I did not think it was necessary to cite it.

For all of the above reasons, I don't see how I can be accused of copyright infringement.

Judy Yung Tombickfong (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, and thanks for your note. There's a few different issues here. First, if you wish to donate materials to which you hold the copyright, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for the process to handle that. I'm not actually an expert on that process, so if you have questions about the details, WT:Donating copyrighted materials would be a good place to ask.
Also, please see WP:COI for our policies on editing by people with conflicts of interest. The two main points there are that editing by such persons is strongly discouraged, and if you do decide to edit despite your COI, you are required by our terms of use to disclose this on your user page. The details can be found at WP:COI.
Lastly, please note that complying with our copyright and COI disclosure policies are a requirement, but don't actually guarantee that your article will be accepted. You still need to meet the notability requirements described in WP:NBIO.
User:Tombickfong/sandbox
-- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

My entry on my husband Eddie Fung is a summary of his memoirs, THE ADVENTURES OF EDDIE FUNG, published by University of Washington Press. As the author/editor of the book, I hold the copyright. Would Wikipedia publish my entry if I donated it as copyrighted material, and if that were possible, can someone show me how to do that? Or should I give up on getting my entry published in Wikipedia because I am related to the subject and find someone else to write the entry? Judy YungTombickfong (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. First, the process to donate your materials is described at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. As I mentioned above, I'm not an expert at that process. I'm aware that it exists, but I've never actually gone through the process myself, so I'm not the best person to ask for help on that. You might try asking for further assistance at Wikipedia talk:Donating copyrighted materials, or sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
Next, I can't promise that resolving the copyright issue will ensure publication. You should read WP:BIO for what we're looking for in a biographical article. It sounds like your intent here is to have an article as a memorial to your husband. While a worthy goal, it's not what we're here for. Please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL for more on that. I know our processes seem confusing and chaotic, but fundamentally, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and everything we do is with that goal in mind. The fact that we make it possible for anybody to create an account and edit, often makes it difficult to see our real goal, and differentiate us from social network sites or web hosting providers. We have very specific (if confusing) requirements on what we'll publish and what we won't. Those requirements all revolve around our mission of writing an encyclopedia, and may or may not support what you're trying to do.
Finally, when you ask, should I give up on getting my entry published in Wikipedia because I am related to the subject and find someone else to write the entry?, I assume you're talking about the conflict of interest problem. Finding (which I assume means, hiring) somebody else to write the article doesn't solve the COI issue. If somebody is being paid to write an article, that's a conflict of interest exactly the same as if you wrote it.
I hope I have been of assistance. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Flash (season 1)

Can you please see if the draft is well-developed and move it to the mainspace? I find it great enough to be there. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please just be patient and somebody will get to it. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Mystery thread

Thank you for your comments This is my first article, so I appreciate your guidance.

The site owner David Klein has placed a Creative Commons Public Domain copyright waiver at https://vibranthealthandwealth.com/product/fruiticulture-planting-a-world-to-end-hunger-poverty-pollution-wars-ebook-by-david-klein-ph-d-don-weaver/.

Please let me know if this is acceptable and if more action is required.

Abdulelah Alsadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulelah1 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did not include a link, so I have no idea what article you're talking about. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Addressing the issues that you've raised.

Hi - thanks for checking my submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faye_Treacy )

You've written:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

The Edinburgh Fringe is probably the biggest comedy festival in the world, and the Evening Standard, Daily Mirror and Daily Record have include Faye Treacy's joke as one of their top jokes of the Fringe. Two of the articles even included a photo of this, from all of the comedians they could have chosen. I'm not sure how this doesn't count as significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? Perhaps you can enlighten me? On my most recent edit I included a few more national press sources as citations? If there's something wrong with the citation style etc then let me know and I'll update it? How much more significant can you get than features in some of the most noteworthy news publications in the UK?

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I've attempted to write this from a neutral point of view (I am myself writing from a relatively neutral point of view. I don't know the person in question, but I did see her show at the most recent Edinburgh Fringe and given the hype around her up there I was shocked to find that she wasn't already listed on Wikipedia. As well as watching her show, I saw her record a live podcast with Stephen K. Amos, and have more recently seen her in a BBC Quickie video that has been going viral on the internet. Reading up on her post-show she seems to be all over the national press, I can't understand why she's not already listed on here). If it reads in an un-neutral way, or like an advert, then I apologise - how would you recommend I update this? The page I've written already refers to a whole range independent, reliable, published sources - how many more do you want?!

Thanks very much for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Fielden (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. I understand your frustration. Please take a look at WP:BIO for guidelines on what we're looking for in biographical articles. Specifically, see the WP:ENTERTAINER section. I don't see that the subject meets those guidelines. I'm not seeing, for example, unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, nor do the other points seem to fit. If you like, see my WP:THREE essay and then pick the three best sources for me to review in more detail. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Motley crew

Thanks for your recent supportive comments. I notice that you're interested in yachting. I'm mostly an armchair sailor but have enjoyed writing articles like Albert Strange; the American Yacht Club (New York), Arthur Beale and worm shoe. Please feel free to get in touch if you need help with such a topic. Andrew D. (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guzzle

Hi Roy; given that we have Guzzle (library), could I recommend a dabpage instead? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't aware of that. Sure, turning it into a dab would make a lot of sense. Could you take care of that? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Turns out there was already a dab page. What a mess. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 20:48:50, 5 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by CrimsonGhost88


RoySmith, do you have any notes for why https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bundle_Your_Internet&action=edit&redlink=1 wasn't approved. I understand there was a lack of outside sources, however, we're a small company with very little press. Do you have any suggestions or alternatives that would work for Wikipedia? CrimsonGhost88 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I know you're not going to like hearing this, but if you're a small company with very little press, you're not going to get a wikipedia article. We have strict standards for what articles we include; one of the fundamental and inviolable principles is that we need independent, reliable, secondary sources. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, you say on your user page, as part of my responsibilities, I'm tasked with the creation of pages specific to dcSolutions and related material. These are to inform and enlighten, not to promote. You website home page says, Your partner in long term lead acquisition. We deliver top quality customer interactions to meet conversion goals and drive results. That's promotion. To claim otherwise is simply disingenuous. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated Faye Treacy

Hi! I've updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faye_Treacy quite substantially now - thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Fielden (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I'll leave it for somebody else to re-review. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Demographic historian

this is the article in question : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Greek_atrocities_in_Macedonia_and_Thrace . I was wondering which statements were not backed up by sources which needed to be . If you show me I will edit them out or find a source . Thanks .

I'm not sure I understand your question. Or, perhaps, you didn't understand the comment I left. My immediate concern was that you are using other wikipedia articles as sources. For example, you make the statement, Almost all neutral sources agree that other then the region of Chalkidiki and the are around Kozani , there were almost no Greeks in Macedonia other then a few pockets such as in Doxato, and as references for that, you cite a bunch of maps included in another wikipedia article. That's not a valid way to reference something. What you need are independent, reliable, secondary sources, as described in WP:RS. I think you also need to read WP:NPOV. You clearly have a (non-neutral) point of view here. That's not what we're looking for in an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

demograhpic historian

Is this the only claim which needs more sources ? Could you give me a list , I will attempt to cite more sources for all of these and if I cannot I will remove them . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demographichistorian (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to go through this and make a comprehensive list. Every statement in the article needs to be supported by reliable sources, and the overall article needs to be presented from a neutral point of view. Please see WP:YFA for some guidance on how to write an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

AfD Relisting: Mani Dhaliwal - Moving forward

Greetings, RoySmith. First, thank you for relisting the AfD (here) so we could get additional feedback on it.

Second, it appears, after a couple weeks, that there may be a consensus for action. Per WP:Deletion_Process it appears you or I could close the discussion, but since this is my first AfD, I think having an admin close it would be smoother. If there's anything else you need from me as the nominator though, please let me know.
--Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Be patient, somebody will close it in a few days. It would be inappropriate to close it yourself. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the input. Elfabet (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock advice needed

I need some advice on a course of action regarding the Naomi Osaka talk page. She just won the US Open tennis event and we have a whole drawer full of just created accounts commenting on whether to include Haitian as her nationality. One brand new account after another. Many with the exact same edit request. Anon IPs too, but regular new accounts such as Plgeorges, TheReelBlackSheep, M&M.plt, Dimes25, Tennisexpertise, LMacTheGr8, TruthandLight6, Aafc1228, and probably more that I'm missing. And it is also spreading to her sister's article. I know it's possible that a new account or two might appear after such a big tennis win, but this many??? I have no idea who I'm talking to on the talk page anymore.

I might not have mentioned this at all, but when we also get another first time user (Mothermania) commenting on another editors talk page as if they are a separate editor, I think things are getting out of hand and we have a load of quacking ducks. Could you check into this or point me in the right direction on how best to handle it? You just sort of randomly came up as an administrator that I chose to contact. Thanks much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I took a quick look. My guess is that these are all the same person, i.e. WP:Sockpuppets. What you should do is open a case at WP:SPI and they will be investigated. I'm an admin, but sockpuppet investigations require access to confidential logs which most admins don't have access to. If the logs provide evidence that these are indeed the same person, they'll be blocked. I don't have access to the logs myself; if I were to start an investigation, I would open an SPI case through exactly the same process. I see the page is already semi-protected:
13:18, 8 September 2018 Ymblanter (talk | contribs | block) protected Naomi Osaka [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 13:18, 11 September 2018) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 13:18, 11 September 2018) (Persistent disruptive editing: Request at WP:RFPP)
so that should cut down on the worst of the abuse. Let me know if I can provide any additional assistance. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The trouble is, most of the issues are on the talk page and I don't think that gets covered in the protection. If I open an SPI which clone would I choose to put it under? The earliest one I can find? The thing is if there was a true consensus on how to list it, I really wouldn't care about the result even if it went against my first preference. But that's impossible given the situation there. I think I'll wait a couple days just with hope it dies down. Thanks again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and opened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghostreconnaissance. If that doesn't solve the problem, we may need to resort to semi-protecting the talk page, but WP:PP#Article talk pages discourages this, so I'm going to hold off for a while and see how things go. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 12:06:17, 12 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Heeramani Prasad


Hi RoySmith, My article is declined, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Global_Belly I have taken references from these articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flipkart&oldid=379787483 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazon_(company)&oldid=310456 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HelloFresh&oldid=824485838

They are accepted initially. Then what is missing in mine article? They also used a news article for the cite. In fact, my company page is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HelloFresh&oldid=824485838 . Initially, they also used the small content. Then we can further contribute.

Heeramani Prasad (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:ORGCRIT for guidance on what we're looking for. The NY Times piece is the best source you've got, but even that is just a short item. Deeper coverage, and more of it, is what we need. Crunchbase listings don't count for much. In general, startups rarely merit articles. Also, are you connected to the company? I'm assuming you are, in which case see WP:COI for disclosure requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion

You might want to look at User:Retorno Pul since you blocked a similar user for being a sock. wumbolo ^^^ 14:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Model V

I added inline citatations (references; now it can even be a citation overkill in some places). --89.25.210.104 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:50:43, 17 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by TonyCat158


Hello Roy,

I took your advice, and found other sources to verify the claims. I haven't heard anything for awhile, so I just wanted to make sure it's still being reviewed. Here is the link to the draft page. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Doyle_Country_Club

I provide 3 sources now. Thanks again!

TonyCat158 (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarity

In the interest of open-ness and clarity, you may want to see what happen at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Inherited_notability_and_architects. I am unlikely to be around for a while from now due to ongoing health issues so perhaps my starting of the thread is something akin to lighting the blue touchpaper. So be it. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Robyn Ward activity

Hi Roy - I noticed that the submission for Draft:Robyn Ward was rejected, and that there's now a Robyn Alexis Ward article that was created in August. This isn't a judgement on the subject's notability, but does seem to be a way around the initial rejection. Possible sock activity as well. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Corrections as suggest to Christopher C. Garrett draft page.

Roy, thanks for guidance. I updated the Christopher C. Garrett draft page as you directed. Let me know if that works or what other changes are needed. 4byu123 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Roy just added New York Times article discussing Garrett and the issues as set forth in the draft in response to your needs WP:RS commment.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4byu123 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/politics/edward-whelan-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford.html

Solar do Ribeirinho

Hi Roy, this is my first time using the talk function, so apologies if I'm not going about this the right way. I've left a comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Solar_do_Ribeirinho to respond to your comment that was left (but not sure if my reply comment published as cannot see it, so I will leave the same here). No, the article you pointed to at https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_do_Ribeirinho is not related to the current article in draft at all. The other article relates to an archaeological site in Madeira with the same name. Hope this answer's your question, but let me know if not. Many thanks in advance.C()c()nut (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi C()c()nut, thanks for your note. Yes, leaving it on my talk page is fine. I think I see what went wrong with the comment you left on the draft itself. I'm guessing you were using the visual editor, and used the "comment" function in the "Insert" drop-down menu. Yes? In any case, I think this a good start, and I encourage you to keep working on it. I'd really like to see the article developed more, and some better sourcing. I'm not going to formally review it, but I'll keep an eye on it and see what other reviewers say. If I have some time, maybe I'll do some work on it myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW, see this bug report for a more technical explanation of why your comment was not visible. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hurom_Juicers Page Deletion

This page I created was deleted due advertising or promotion reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hurom_Juicers&action=edit&redlink=1

01:45, 28 August 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Hurom Juicers (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)

Not sure how it can be rectified not to be deleted. Hurom is a brand and is one of the first slow juicers, the info provided is insightful and there's no Hurom page existing on Wikipedia. Kindly let me know how to do it differently.

EncycWik (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to describe the company using a neutral point of view. For example, statements like:
  • Hurom’s pioneering spirit and passion has led them to create unique and innovating juicers.
  • The 1-size-fits-all, finned juicing cone will help you single-handedly squeeze any citrus fruit
  • The Hurom Citrus Juicer is hands down the best way to get every last drop of juice

Are all fluffery trying to show the company and product in the best light. Please see WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. EncycWik (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

How to add sources to reflist

Hi. I am wondering how to add the sources you showed me on Draft:Twilight (1837 steamboat). I also think it deserves a new title, "Twilight (towboat)". I will move the page. But mainly No.1 question. Thanks! Huff slush7264 14:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I would start by doing some research. Find as many sources as you can which talk about this boat. Make a list of them, and evaluate the quality of each one. For example, here's a list I made a while ago for a topic I was considering writing about. Once you've got a good collection of quality sources, then it's time to start writing, using the facts that you've found.
I wouldn't worry about the title. Titles are easy to change at any time, and the best title may not be apparent until the article is done.
-- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

About what you said

You said the librarians would be helpful at Twilight. But I live in Pittsburgh, not Madison. How do I research there so I can get photos? I thought they said No photos may b used without permission of University of Wisconsin-Madison . I think you have good advice, but how do I follow it? Thanks. Huff slush7264 Chat With Me 14:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Librarians have email :-) What I do in a case like this is find an email address or contact form on the library's web site. Use that to make a polite request for the image. Something like:

I am editor on Wikipedia. I am doing research for a new article about the steamboat Twilight. I found an image on your website ((link to the specific URL)) that I would like to use with the article. Would you be willing to upload the image to Wikipedia Commons so it can be used?

They may be willing, they may not be. But the best way to find out is to ask. The copyright statement you mention is a generic statement covering the entire site. The librarians will know more specifically what limitations apply to any particular image. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian Osigwe's deleted Wikipedia page

Hi there,

I'm Tolu Olasoji a contributor on Wikipedia and an international football journalist based in Nigeria.

I created Osigwe’s profile off a red link from Nigeria’s U20 team to the Toulon tournament in 2013 as his profile on SC Kriens is dormant.

Earlier in the month, I wrote the few lines and his club history hoping to later include his statistics and more information which were readily available as at the time I did it.

I hadn't been chance to coming back to continue and I was sure of curious football readers not getting half information as this profile doesn't show in the first pages of Google SERP.

This night, though, It was actually a coincidence when I entered to finish off where I left it to see it got deleted a minute after I logged on.

I read all debate on the deletion page and all I noticed there's very little the debaters understood about the goalkeeper.

He's a professional goalie with SC Kriens in the second division of the Swiss League, they got promotion at the end of last season and was crucial to that.

Also, there's been indications in the past that Nigeria coach Gernot Rohr was willing to invite him.

Please, kindly help restore the page so I finish it off as soon as possible.

P.S: I can send in a rough brief about him if required

Best,

Tollexrism (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Osigwe. This was pretty straight-forward. The applicable policies are WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG. By a wide margin, the editors who participated in the discussion felt that he didn't meet those. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

HC Draft Deleted

You deleted the draft I submitted for review due to "copyright" work being on the page. But everything on the page was re-written to avoid copyright and written from an independent perspective. Can you please un-delete the page? Draft:HospitalCareers. I'll have to ask for some help from an outside source since the ten corrections/revisions I've made aren't enough, even though I'm following the guidelines and mentioning all the changes, and the content is all from independent sources. Please and thank you. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckyx55 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually User:MelanieN deleted it. I just suggested that it be deleted. In any case, the copyright violation was just one of many problems with this. Even if the copyvio problem were resolved, the article reads like an advertisement, and probably qualifies for WP:G11. I'm curious, do you have any connection with the company? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@ RoySmith, no I don't have any connections with them. I discovered them on one of the Top Job Board listings when I was conducting a recent job search and noticed they didn't have any Wikipedia page. You can look through my history of contributions and see that it's my first page creation, but I've had several positive edits/contributions over the course of a year. Like I've said, I've made like 7 to 8 revisions to remove the overly-promotional speak, and also included several independent resources since one of the editors said that I only referenced companies that use them after reading the guidelines extensively each time. I don't understand how it's considered a "marketing/advertisement material", when the only thing that is on there is a list of the features they provide? I don't see how that's an issue. I tried to emulate already published pages like CareerBuilder, and they do the same thing. They list the features like I have. There are also no copyright violations. When you run the page through CopyScape, there are no copy violations or "copied/pasted" sections. The page reads similar to how CareerBuilder's is created, and that was my intention to make sure that it was independent. I don't understand. In any case, can you restore the Draft so I can seek help from editors?
Hi, Roy! As you know I've been asked to restore this draft so they can work on it. You had tagged it as not only promotional but copyvio. I was unable to verify the copyvio. The link you provided - an expired job listing - did not contain any of the draft's material, and a Google search for some of the phrases from the draft did not turn up duplication. I deleted it as G-11 only. Can you clarify the copyvio issue for me? I could consider restoring it, with advice, to give them another shot at improving the article. But obviously I can't restore it if it contains copyvio material. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It was a "close paraphrase" type thing. The lede said

HospitalCareers is a job search engine[1] that connects healthcare professionals with healthcare employers. Through a network of twenty-six state Hospital Associations, and online targeting strategies, HospitalCareers guides healthcare professionals to healthcare jobs and provides healthcare organizations with a recruitment resource to attract candidates

and linkedin has

HospitalCareers.com is the healthcare industry's leading career destination site that connects healthcare candidates and hospitals to find their perfect match. Through our network of twenty-five state Hospital Associations and our advanced online targeting strategies, we guide healthcare professionals into successful and fulfilling careers and provide healthcare organizations with the most cost-effective recruitment resource to attract the highest quality of candidates

. I'll admit that's a marginal WP:G12 call. But, it's certainly WP:G11 material. I'll leave it to your best judgement and go with whatever decision you make. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, yes, I see what you mean. The link is shifty; earlier today I could see the material, now linkedin is insisting that I have to register to see it. What I saw earlier today is certainly too close to be restored. They will have to try to create a new draft, with the caution NOT to closely follow what the company says about itself, but to use other similar Wikipedia pages as a model. My hunch is that it never will make it as an article, because of the lack of any outside sources writing ABOUT the company. I'll counsel them in the morning, I'm tired tonight. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Screen Shot 2018-10-07 at 9.58.09 AM.png

Thanks for uploading File:Screen Shot 2018-10-07 at 9.58.09 AM.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 14:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Anticaucasus

Please stop your disruptive editing.What you doing sir(madam), is extreme measures to destroy my article by any means, I see my article didn't let you sleep. It is seriously look like harassment toward me and my article directly from you 107.242.117.3 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sun October 14: Open House New York Weekend Upload Party @ NYU ITP and Indigenous People's Justice Edit-a-thon @ Interference Archive

You are invited to join two events supported by the Wikimedia NYC community on Sunday October 14:

2:00pm - 6:00 pm at ITP, Tisch School of the Arts. New York University (721 Broadway, New York, NY)
The photo competition is at many sites all weekend, this is just the concluding event
2:00 - 5:00pm at Interference Archive (314 7th Street, Brooklyn, NY)
Note the new Park Slope location for Interference Archive

Have a WikiWonderful Weekend! --Pharos (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Deleting Avenida de Cuba

I can help to salvage and transfer any relevant data to the new target if you help me reach the information in the former article. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 20:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Everything is still there, in the history. Note that if you merge material, you should mention that in the edit summary, per WP:SMERGE, item 6. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Windows Calendar

The reason for protecting the page simply does not exist anymore. That is why I asked to remove it. In future, someone might come along and want to edit it for a number of reasons, and now that restoring the article would be no different than on any other page (since the AfD has been rendered moot) there is absolutely no reason to prevent this technically – reverting is always an option, just like on any other page.

In short, protection should only be used when there is an ongoing reason for it, as it discourages editing. There is none here. Modernponderer (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember the context. Please provide a link to the discussion thread. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar is the original discussion. Notability was the only concern, which did result in the article being deleted. It was later restored as a redirect so the content was available, then protected because someone tried to revert it.
Since then the subject of the article became much more notable, and a new article was created at Calendar (Windows) (as the subject of the article was renamed to "Calendar" in the interim). So it makes no sense to keep the redirect protected, as the AfD is already moot. Modernponderer (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It took me quite a bit of time to track down what you're talking about. The thread in question was WP:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#16 October 2018, under Windows Calendar. In any case, I still agree with EdJohnston. I suppose you are correct that there's no real need for the protection any more, but what are you planning to do if it's removed? Given the existence of Calendar (Windows), there's no need for a forked article at this title. If your plan is to perform a rename, the best thing to do would be to build consensus for that first, on the talk pages. Once you've got that consensus, any admin can perform the move for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:RoySmith. If the redirect is unprotected, it's unlikely that anything useful will occur. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_18&oldid=999561470"