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

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.


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.

-- 11:51, Monday December 29, 2014 (UTC)

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

Thank you[edit]

Thanks again for your time and work in providing your RfA nomination. Your nomination, along with those provided by Spartaz and Yunshui, was greatly appreciated. NorthAmerica1000 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Noodles typo or clever pun[edit]

I've learned that in the dangerous world of puns, sometimes acknowledgement alone can be success czar  06:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hudson Street Hooligans[edit]

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

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

Deletion review for Hudson Street Hooligans[edit]

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

For the deletion of entry "Yet another cleaner"[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book rebinding‎[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/East Coast Basketball League[edit]

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

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

Reference Errors on 13 December[edit]

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

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

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello RoySmith, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
NorthAmerica1000 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletions and backlinks[edit]

Hi Roy,

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

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

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

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

George Gracie[edit]

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

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

Assyrian propaganda on Wikipedia[edit]

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

Read this Link and see how Assyrian fascists from all over the world try to Assyrianize everything on Wikipedia:;wap2 --Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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