User talk:RoySmith

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

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: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) 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

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!

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.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 01:53, Saturday, September 7, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Racism

When DGG, a sitting Arbitrator, accuses me of racism, my response was justified. Tarc (talk)

SwisterTwister

Thanks for your comments over at DRV. I sometimes think that I'm crazy because I can't make heads or tails of SwisterTwister's contributions at AfD -- the one on display at DRV right now is entirely typical. There's almost an "emperor's new clothes" effect with him, where his contributions are treated as perfectly acceptable by the vast majority of AfD participants. Engagement is impossible: he blanks talk page messages without responding. I brought up his behavior at ANI last year and got nowhere with it. I think he's a net negative to AfD but I have no idea what to do about it. A Train^talk 16:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Per your comments at DRV you might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

just a little userfication request

Would you mind giving me a copy of Talk:House of Finwë? I remember I wrote an old comment there giving a bit of sourced (directly to Tolkien) trivia on his use of Old English names for them; I'd like to have it recorded somewhere in my userspace. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of userfying deleted articles, unless there's some specific plan to work on them and return them to mainspace. See Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content. But, you may be able to find another admin who's willing to do this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I do plan to put it in List of Middle-earth Elves (these deleted pages listed subsets of this extant list) to make its sourcing a little less terrible when I do get it all back; hopefully that counts as a plan. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NaagaKannike

I have split the difference at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NaagaKannike and moved the article to Draft:NaagaKannike, where it can be improved and submitted for restoration to mainspace in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fróði Fríðason Jensen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fróði Fríðason Jensen. 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. .--Snaevar (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Alderaan (astronomy) deletion discussion.

I have slightly modified your close note to make more clear what the result of the close was. A 'Redirect' close usually implies that the article is blanked and redirected to a different existing article. In this case your close notes, and the actions you performed indicate that the result was 'keep' with a move to Al-Dhira' (with a redirect left behind). I hope that this action of mine was ok, I certainly don't want to step on your toes at all but i thought it was worth making the result of the close a bit more clear for those reviewing the AfD in the future (and also to fix it in the AfD Stats tool). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm OK with the clarification, but it's really not cool to edit something that somebody else wrote and signed. That makes it look like I wrote it. In this case, your change is reasonable, but you really should have asked me first. Especially when the page starts off with Please do not modify it in red letters. At the very least, do it as a note, not above my signature, so it's clear who wrote what. But, really, it would have been better if you just asked me first.. Also, It really helps me if people include a link to the AfD or whatever. I close a lot of AfDs. I had to go rummaging through your edit history to find the link to this page. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Steffen Krautschneider

On 4 August, you were responsible for the deletion of Steffen Krautschneider. In the meanwhile, a corresponding bluelink has been created in combination with the 2017-18 DFB-Pokal first round. I would like to motivate you to create a redirect of Steffen Krautschneider to 1._FC_Schweinfurt_05#Current_squad. Thank you!--Sekundogenitur (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, like I said in my closing statement, I'm not going to include it in the consensus. Feel free to create it on your own, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Murray-Nadal rivalry

Hi there,

Would you mind emailing a copy of Murray-Nadal rivalry to me? Just noticed the AfD. I typically do some research to ensure my past students' articles are notable first, but it's been a long time. Granted, my knowledge of tennis was and is very, very limited so I may have just been wrong, but I'd like to take a look. Participants of the discussion primarily talked about how it's not "inherently notable" but I don't really see any evaluation of sources... (though obviously there were policy-based reasons given -- I'm not contesting the close). Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Restored to User:Rhododendrites:Murray–Nadal rivalry -- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

City National Arena

Can you userfiy it for me so i can work on it as i want to fix it up that was why i added it to deletion review i did not know that i could not do that so i have sources i want to use for it but i cannot recreate article but it would be easier if it was on my userpage or on a draft namespace

Moved to User:Flow234/City National Arena. Please note, this would have been easier if you followed the big red Attention editors instructions and included a link. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: AfD:Stanley Aronowitz bibliography

Did you mean for this to stand as a precedent? Would you look at the edit history of Gina Rippon for me? I would be interested in you comments. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist and Randykitty: Hmm, not sure what to tell you there. I can see how one might infer from my closing statement that there was a general statement being made about the length and depth of bibliographies. That would be beyond the scope of what I had intended. That being said, please don't interpret my statement here as passing judgement one way or another on any particular edits made subsequently by other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The choice of five articles (which has been reduced to three in the edit summary for Rippon), seems just arbitrary to me. Also, I don't actually see the problem with Wikipedia becoming an alternative resource for students for academics bibliography. When I was a student I didn't always find the resources that were available all that intuitive. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Brenner close

As per WP:Administrator, admins "must never use [tools] to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved." 

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Brenner (politician) your close states, "the coverage was from local media which report on local politicians as an obligatory function, and thus this coverage does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG."  The claim that "this coverage does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG" does not allow verification in WP:GNG, although I am aware of your previous interest to pull in the essay WP:Independent sources, which is linked in WP:GNG.

As stated to you at the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 19,

Comment Here are the first two sentences of the essay WP:Independent sources, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example." Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You returned to your "all [references] in a local paper" argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall (2nd nomination), where it was stated to you,

If you think there is consensus that local sources shouldn't count toward the GNG, start an RfC. But I don't believe there is anything near consensus on that point, yet you are arguing we are all clearly in the wrong here. OK, ignoring that, could you explain why deleting this is good for the encyclopedia? I've not seen anyone address that, and if it's not, we really shouldn't be doing it. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The closing of the 2nd Sumter AfD stated, "Hobit's argument regarding local sources appeared to me to be better based on the text of GNG."

The 2nd Sumter AfD closed on 12 June 2014, and 31 July 2014 was the date you blocked [1] the editor who re-created the Sumter mall article after the DRV.  The block cited edit warring even though the article in question had been stable for a week, and you did not issue a warning before the block.

Returning to WP:INVOLVED, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017

Continuing discussion from Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_May_2.

Not only is Gaon the official chart of South Korea, it is also used to help give awards for the annual Gaon Chart Music Awards. Keeping this list of number ones is a good idea, rather than deleting it, because Gaon's website doesn't give a list of only weekly number ones all on a single page the way this article does and the way previous annual articles do. Lists of number one singles are not simple mirrors of content on Gaon's site, as they are more strict in the content they present. For these reasons, I move that the page be reinstated, and that all further discussions of deleting Gaon number ones pages, such as this one, be ended. If the page is reinstated, it will also help new users by removing the possibility that someone will begin recreating the same page, which already exists in someone's user pages. Logically, looking for the number one singles page for 2017 and only finding prior years, does not indicate that the prior years' pages should be deleted; rather, it only appears to a new user that the 2017 page has yet to be created. As it stands, it is a difficult and lengthy process to find the current user page, which would be used for the final article. If more users begin to edit Wikipedia with K-pop pages, only to find that they have already been created, it could discourage new users from contributing. If 2017 is not reinstated, then all other Gaon Chart pages should be removed. Please kindly consider my opinion. Satou4 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, like the closing statement said, if somebody can write a new article which addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, they are free to do so. But, keep in mind that you'll need to address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017, and meet all our other requirements such as WP:N and the guidelines it references. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, until the other annual lists finish their deletion debates, it isn't pertinent to consider improving them. Satou4 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page a featured list candidate? To my eyes, it is a simple mirror just like the rest of them. Satou4 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and marked several pages for deletion on the Billboard and ARIA top singles lists. They are also mirrors of their respective sites, and have no place on Wikipedia. Of course, those deletion discussions will be swift. Satou4 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)