User talk:RoySmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon[edit]

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
ArtAndFeminismNYC-Generations.jpg

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. 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.

DRV[edit]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 05:41, Friday July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge


A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Contentious Ra Law of One DRV, the right close, and a perfect explanation. WilyD 10:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi RoySmith. Because you closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLPI (2nd nomination)[edit]

I thought that deletion request closures were to be policy based. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLPI (2nd nomination) was closed as non consensus. The two opting for delete used policy while the two opting for keep were vague and did not provide any sources to support the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It looked to me like both sides were making reasonable arguments, so NC seemed like the proper course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs[edit]

Due to the fact that I wasn't able to response to your vote. Here we go: "The family history of royalty from 2500 years ago is the heart and soul of what an encyclopedia is all about.." — I am not arguing for deletion because I believe Georgian royals to non-notable. I created List of Georgian consorts and helped clean up many articles about Georgian kings and queens. My argument is the list of mothers is trivial and not up to Wikipedia standard. I am not claiming the mothers are not notable. We don't have any such list anywhere else in Western monarchies. If there was a distinct title documented in sources such as Queens mother or Valide Sultan that would be different, we have had articles like this, but no this is a list of people who didn't have a distinct title. It is just a trivial list.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Where an editor keeps on restoring uncited material, without inline refs as required by wp:burden, including blp info, such as at Cornwall Square, what is the best way of addressing it? The back and forth of quoting wp:burden and deleting it ... is that the only way? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I wish I had a good answer for you. Human behavior modification is a thorny problem, and one which technology fails badly at trying to solve. One possibility is asking for a disinterested party to assist, on WP:RFC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So you propose WP:BR-RFC (bold, revert, RFC)?  Epeefleche believes in WP:BRT (bold, revert, template the regular's talk page).  Whatever happened to WP:BRDUnscintillating (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not primarily a WP:BURDEN issue.  Epeefleche is interested in reverse-ripening the article for deletion so that he can get articles deleted that would not otherwise have been deleted.  If he believed in the strength of his own AfD argument that the article was worthless, he would not feel a need to tamper with the evidence.  As for the alleged WP:BURDEN, just within the last two weeks, diff, I documented a case in which Epeefleche removed sourced material from an article he had taken to AfD.  So the mere fact that Epeefleche says that there is a WP:BURDEN issue is not proof that such exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall Square[edit]

Apologies in advance for the length of this post.

At Cornwall Square, you edited, diff, over an edit comment that said, "talk page is next". 

I stated at 3RR at 2014-07-02T06:35,

"I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V.  There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit."

The sequence of edits on 2 July 2014 (UTC) is this:

  • 2:22, [1] I begin to work on the article, restoring 15% of the material, 300 characters, that Epeefleche had removed in his last two edits.
  • 2:25, Epeefleche templates my talk page, when the correct next step was a WP:BRD discussion.
  • 2:26, Epeefleche edits the article.
  • 2:28 [2] I add the eleven references.
  • 2:33-2:37 I detect and repair the edit conflict.
  • 2:50, last of my edits in that sequence.
  • 2:51, Epeefleche posts a vandalism template to my talk page.  Note specifically that after I added the eleven references to the article, the next template on my talk page was "vandalism".
  • 2:53, Epeefleche again edits the article.
  • 3:05, I restore Epeefleche's edit of 2:26.
  • 4:12, I restore a stable version of the article, that of 2014-06-21T01:24:58‎, and state, "talk page is next", diff.
  • 4:18, I start discussion on talk page. Diff for all comments at Talk:Cornwall_Square.
  • 4:21, Epeefleche ignores "talk page is next" and starts a discussion on your talk page called "Question".
  • 4:22, 4:24, 4:25, Epeefleche templates my talk page.
  • 4:44, Epeefleche announces at Talk:Cornwall Square that he and I have had an "at length" discussion.  Analysis shows that this "at length" discussion amounts to two templates posted on my talk page.  Roy, please pay attention to what Epeefleche thinks is "at length" discussion.  Then note the italics added to the word "already". 
  • 4:48, Epeefleche posts at WP:3RR.  My statement that neither editor has done any edit warring is sustained by the closing admin.
  • 12:04, You edit Cornwall Square, diff, bypassing the talk page.
  • 12:08, You reply in the "Question" section on your talk page, about my "behavior modification".
  • 12:34, You post at Talk:Cornwall Square in a new section.
  • 15:47, Epeefleche posts at Talk:Cornwall Square without replying to either of two specific questions, and he specifically does not discuss the material in the article.  His attitude is uncivil and disrespects WP:CONSENSUS.

Roy, I came to this article to add eleven sources.  Three minutes after I began to work, I was templated on my talk page.  The speed of the response is impressive, but misguided.  The proper response was to go to the talk page as per the "D" in WP:BRD.

These were sources that Epeefleche should have reported as a part of WP:BEFORE D1.  The book is on the first page of 10 hits at Google books, and six of the articles are on the first page of 10 hits at Google newspapers.  That leaves 4 more hits I found by looking beyond the first page of 10 hits at Google newspapers.

At Talk:Cornwall Square, there were four confounded edits [3] [4] [5] [6] to discuss, which you bypassed when you started to edit.  As part of the process of beginning to add the eleven references, there had been two confounded edits, and I restored 15% of the material Epeefleche had removed, material that lacked consensus for removal.  That means that even though I was agreeing with Epeefleche on 85%, he still demanded my 100% acceptance of his viewpoint without discussion.

If you were going to get involved, why did you ignore the eleven references which I had had to remove so that I could engage in discussion on the talk page of the article?  Are you trying to "win" at AfD?

I'm not sure how it happens, but I think that Epeefleche needs to do the following:  (1) Perform WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion.  As much time as he puts into replying to those he perceives to be opponents, this is not asking a lot.  (2) Stop removing material and references from articles at AfD and articles on which he has posted a notability tag.  (3) Use Template:CN tags.  (4) Stop templating the regulars.  (5) Observe WP:BRD. 

As for yourself, I again request that you support our policies and guidelines, specifically including WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:ATD.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is. At Talk:Cornwall Square, you wrote, I think we can agree [...] that the section "Stores and Services", and the last sentence of the lede that only lists tenants can be removed as per WP:TENANTS. Which is exactly what I deleted. As for the rest, TLDNR. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You wonder out loud what the point is, and then almost in the same breath you state that you didn't read the post.  Do you see any contradiction there?
It is not true that you "exactly" removed what I proposed.  And you don't actually state that my proposal is why you were editing the article.  The timing suggests that you came to the article to stir up trouble, and that your involvement on the talk page was an afterthought.  What was so urgent about removing the material that you did, that it had to be done during the AfD, and had to be done in a way that prevented the building of consensus on the talk page of the article?  And if the removal of this material was so important, why was it not also urgent to restore the eleven references?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (2nd nomination)[edit]

Why did you nominate this for deletion?  The only thing I see is a statement on the talk page that implies that the topic should be merged.  A quick WP:BEFORE D1 look shows a scholarly 200-page book written about the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor started a nomination, which needed to be completed by a registered user. All I did was complete the process. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 8#Megan Nicole[edit]

Hi RoySmith. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 8#Megan Nicole. When you relist an article at AfD, would you include a link to the relisted discussion in your closing statement?

Instead of "Endorse, but relist on AfD", maybe "Endorse but relist at AfD"? The convenience link will make it much easier to find relisted XfDs from the DRV pages. There are two examples from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 15 (see IronGargoyle's closes).

Also, would you consider restoring the deleted revisions of Talk:Megan Nicole so the full history is available?

Thank you for your hard work at DRV. I appreciated that you offered detailed, sound advice to an IP editor at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 5#Roundtable Institute since there unfortunately wasn't any participation in the DRV. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for the kind words. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, RoySmith. Regarding this edit: Would you consider linking directly to the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Nicole (2nd nomination)) rather than to the log (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 15#Megan Nicole)? Linking directly to the AfD is better because the AfD log takes much longer to load. And the link to the AfD log could become a dead link if the AfD is relisted on another day's log. (I would make the change myself, but that would require editing your closing statement, which I'd rather not do.) Cunard (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. For things like this, please feel free to edit yourself. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Roy. With your permission, I will make such edits to your closes in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And I will attempt to do a better job, so such corrections aren't necessary :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

deletion of HTTPhotos[edit]

Hello, I thought we should reach a consensus before deleting a page. I really didn't have this impression on the debate and given comments are quite subjective. Do you also consider the 5 sources below are unreliable or not independent?

Thanks, FromSpace (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I could see in the debate, there was clear consensus to delete. It looks like 5 people arguing for deletion, with reasonable, policy-based arguments, and you were the only one arguing to keep. You did present a number of sources, but the people in the debate who reviewed those sources didn't feel they were sufficient to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To me, 4 people were against the article because of Notability based on 1 CNET article only and we've no idea if 2 of them would have changed their mind after knowing about the 5 sources. 1 was against because of stub status and we have no idea if he/she would have changed his mind after the last article update. I believe we could have relisted the article instead of deleting at this point. Also, I find very subjective the opinion one can give on the quality of sources and I'm not sure any of the sources listed there would appreciate to be qualified as unreliable:
  • Richie333 wanted to delete because of Notability (only a CNET review)
  • Jinkinson gently disagreed with Notability but was pro delete because the page was in Stub state
  • Dialectric said there is only COM Magazine so it's not enough for Notability (at that time he/she didn't know about the 5 sources)
  • Dmitrij D. Czarkoff: same as Dialectric's opinion and didn't change his mind after knowing the 5 sources
  • Lesser Cartographies find the 5 sources are not enough

FromSpace (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My role in closing the AfD is not to evaluate sources, but to summarize the arguments of the people who participated in the debate. That being said, I just went back and took a look at the sources you cite. I'm afraid I agree with most of the participants, that these sources do not meet the WP:N requirement. If you still feel that I closed this incorrectly, your next action should be to bring this to deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I was happy to write this article but I won't spend my time trying to keep it. If people vote no, then let's delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talkcontribs) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Jury[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to review that DRV. Hopefully in the future, I will have what it takes to get it moved back into article space. BOZ (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)