User talk:RoySmith

Differences

@RoySmith, Mulkaji (Chief Kaji) was different from Kaji in the power usage. Kaji was a common term for few senior officials while Mulkaji was the head of all those Kajis. Thus, all Mulkajis were Kajis but all Kajis were not the Mulkajis. Only one person held the Mul (Chief) Kaji position among the conventional four Kaji system. See Pradhan (2012) page 12*Pradhan, Kumar L. (2012), Thapa Politics in Nepal: With Special Reference to Bhim Sen Thapa, 1806–1839, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, p. 278, ISBN 9788180698132 So, obviously different and significant executive head before Mukhtiyar.

RE canvassing on Anna Poray

RE your comment in your close diff that editors were probably alerted by AE, this is rather clearly not the case on temporal grounds. AE was filed 23:00, 14 May 2018. The AfD at that time looked like this - AFD at at 20:06, 14 May 2018 - 4 oddly formated "OPPOSE" !votes. Note also a new user jumping in later (and patterns elsewhere in this regards). I have my suspicions, grounded in intersection with past practices here, regarding the mode of communication (both here and elsewhere) - but perhaps not for open talk.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see how that really makes any difference to how this could have been closed. If you think there's something inappropriate going on, you're free to pursue that through other channels. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree this was mostly irrelevant to the close - just wanted to correct the record on this being related to AE. Probably will not pursue other channels on this aspect - hard to make such a case - but would appreciate if you struck the related to AE comment on the close in case this does get pursued as part as something wider.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to leave whatever comments you feel are needed on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Terufumi Sasaki

Could you review again? I wish to add substantially more material relating to the founding of mass casualty radiation management. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, My comments about merging to the parent article was just a suggestion. If you intend to add more material to your draft which might make it into a good stand-alone article, please continue to work on the draft. There's no rush; as long as you're making progress, you can continue to work on the draft for as long as you want. By the way, messages, such as this, belong on User talk pages, not the User page itself. It's not a problem, just wanted to let you know why I moved your comment here. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the draft has been accepted. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

13:32:20, 23 May 2018 review of submission by JoJosh3131

• JoJosh3131 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Patrick Walsh, Investor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Roy, I've made significant changes & added citations since your last review. In addition, I noticed another person FloridaArmy made some edits. Whats the status of a re-review, does it go to you or someone else?

There's no hard and fast rule on whether I should re-review it, or leave it for somebody else. In this case, I think I'll leave it for another reviewer. It's useful to get multiple points of view, and somebody looking at it fresh won't bring along their preconceptions from the first time they looked at it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patrick_Walsh,_Investor JoJosh3131 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for including the link. By the way, there's two ways to link to something. The way you did it (single brackets with a http URL inside) isn't wrong, but for linking internally to other wiki pages, a more convenient way is to use double brackets, and just the page title, like this: [[Draft:Patrick Walsh, Investor]] (spaces and all), which renders like this: Draft:Patrick Walsh, Investor. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roy,

Just wanted to follow up here. Minus an actual re-review are you able to provide any insight on the new draft - does it meet your standards, if it didn't I would want to redraft prior to a re-review from someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJosh3131 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, I think it best to wait for somebody else to come along and re-review it. In general, I have a dim view of most WP:BLP articles. I've already expressed my initial impression. Perhaps somebody else will have something more positive to say. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Question on how to handle difficulty over Criticisms of medicine

@RoySmith: I was very glad to see the article Criticisms of medicine restored. Unfortunately, within an hour the same user Alexbrn who originally proposed it for deletion made a series of deletion edits that reduced the page from about 19K to 1300 bytes, and then immediately proposed it again for deletion. It seems to reflect his anger at your decision. As a relatively new editor, I was surprised at this. Is this in accordance with WP procedure? Isn't it a type of "edit warring" and refusal to accept consensus? I don't think that a new discussion on the AfD page is called for, and it could turn acrimonious (though I'll do my best to keep my annoyance under wraps).NightHeron (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As for the edits, that is something you need to work out on the article talk page with the other editor(s). It's really not my place to get involved in a content dispute. As for the AfD, WP:RENOM suggests that it would be prudent to wait before renominating, but that's just an essay, not policy. I wouldn't be surprised if the AfD got speedy closed by somebody, but I'm not going to do that. It's better I leave that decision to an uninvolved admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I as an experienced AFD user speedy close it as SKCRIT 2(a) vexatious. as an NACR. But better not I don't want DRV, can we give some sanctions to that user as this is clearly disruptive editing and abuse of process. We had too much these days in AFD. --Quek157 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And I am pretty amazed that an admin Deb can be there commenting so lack of concerns of procedures, what is the Rfa process where AFD is a key area. And still asking me why another forum maybe better. With all respect, an admin sitting there should do much better. --Quek157 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I really want to remain neutral here. My part of the process was closing the DRV. What happens after that, I should leave to other admins. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

me too, rescuing myself also --Quek157 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I just saw my mistake on the article Ayo that I created ! Thank you for the feedback. Biggiepopa (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Biggiepopa (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Anticaucasus

I'm not sure this needs to be its own article. Quite possibly it could just be merged with Lesser Caucasus. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What you have wrote , just shows yours incompetence on this subject sir. I am sorry but everything you have sed about my article is look like scientific discrimination and perjury. Article ment to bring knowledge to publuc about ancient name of this mountain system of Armenian highland. And you sir ,seems to be against that knowledge personally. Lesser Caucasus is the artificial name created by russian and georgian Bolsheviks and nationalists in early 20-th sentury with political reasons only. And you sir siding with this kind of people. All of it have nothing to do with sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Эльбрус Казбекович (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. What brought that on? I'm not siding with anybody, I'm just trying to help you with this draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry about sockpuppetry accusation against user - misunderstanding that warrants further review and discussion

Recently a student of mine who is involved in a master's level course project has been accused by you of sockpuppetry (Sockpuppet_investigations/NewlindsLucy3298). As course instructor, I am writing to you to try to sort of the issue, as I believe there has been a misunderstanding. This user and her partner for the assignment Ara12eno (User:Ara12eno) began this assignment by attempting to create an article on coffee production in Yemen (Coffee_production_in_Yemen). However due to an insufficient number of reliable sources available, they switched their focus to the article "Sanctions against Afghanistan". Their work has been monitored by me throughout their article writing efforts, and document as part of the course event page (Political Economy and Development in the Middle East Course Dashboard).

As I wrote before, I believe there has been a misunderstanding thus I am writing to you for further clarification on your investigation with the expectation that we can solve this on behalf of the accused user so that she can continue with her work on Wikipedia.

D.Thompson (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• @D.Thompson: Hi, and thanks for your note. What you and your students are doing is fine. We do get a lot of abuse of the system, and unfortunately, that often makes us assume the worst when we see things that, on the surface, look suspicious. I'll take care of it. Might I also suggest that you ask your students to place a note on their user page indicating that they're part of your class? That'll help avoid any future misunderstandings. Thanks for your understanding, and my apologies for any confusion and inconvenience. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Albert Reuss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lichtreich/sandbox Dear RoySmith, I missunderstood the meaning of „Drop Box“ and thougth, it might be a kind of open space where other users are allowed to make suggestions referring the original article in order to get this accepted. I have to apologize for the confusion that I have caused. I feel ashamed for my silly mistake, sorry. Please delete the English version in my sandbox. Best regards --Lichtreich (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. It was a minor misunderstanding and no harm was done. Your user sandbox is indeed a place where you're free to do whatever experimentation and preparation you want. Where things got confusing is when you submitted both your sandbox and the draft for reviews. Probably the easiest thing at this point is if you just blank your sandbox page (open it in the editor remove all the content, and save it back as an empty page). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I just made Sinclair Method a redirect

Just a heads up that I have made Sinclair Method a redirect. The old article was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sinclair_Method_(2nd_nomination); I made it a redirect again for pragmatic reasons: The page http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/26/alcoholics-anonymous-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ has a link to the old Sinclair Method article, and I think a link to a short summary is more useful for readers than a dead link. (I personally think The Sinclair Method probably doesn't work, but WP:NOTAFORUM and all that) Defendingaa (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there was another attempt to bring Sinclair Method back from the dead, but that article was made in to a redirect back in 2016. Changing case to avoid an AfD decision is a bit tacky, so I added a note about the 2015 AfD to that page (and its talk page) too. Defendingaa (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Seems reasonable to me. My one suggestion is that you ping the other AfD participants so they're also aware. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ RoySmith--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have pinged everyone who 1) Was part of that old 2015 AfD discussion 2) Is active (one or more edit in 2018) Defendingaa (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A hill to die on

Just FYI, the use of the phrase "hill to die on" wasn't any sort of threat or insult, especially not one warranting an RD2 edit summary deletion: [1].

Hill to die on is a figure of speech, referring to choosing a position – often in an argument or negotiation – where one will sacrifice everything in order to not give up ground. Inviting someone to find a different hill to die on isn't wishing death upon them; it's encouraging them to consider whether or not they ought to dig in their heels quite so much. See also Wikitionary (e.g.: "Is correct laundry folding really a hill to die on?"). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, don't I feel stupid. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Goal Structuring Notation

Hi! Not sure what the best way to progress here is. You stated that the proposed article Draft:Goal Structuring Notation is unlikely to meet the notability criteria. According to the notability guideline, it explicitly says that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. A google book search on Goal Structuring Notation will resultis in 8780 hits, which I would have thought is sufficient to meet the notability prerequisite. Would you recommend that the draft article is expanded with additional references before being resubmitted for review? I am not sure that I would like to undertake that effort if publication of the article is uncertain. 194.218.229.113 (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. What we're looking for is specific, reliable, independent, sources, which talk about the topic. Just presenting the output of a google search isn't useful. You need to go through that listing and find the specific sources which actually talk about the subject and cite them in the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, the search I referred to specifically targets publications, so I think it is relevant. The review template actually automatically adds it when the draft is submitted for review. You did not respond to that the notability guideline says that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. How about a referral to IEEE, that shows that there are 163 conference papers about GSN published by IEEE? I do not think that can be used as a reference in the article, but it indicates that the subject is notable? 194.218.229.113 (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Request on 20:04:04, 29 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Anukpaba

• Anukpaba (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Researchers of Truth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI Roy,

As per your comment on Thursday24 May 2018 regarding the researchers of truth sandbox submission I have added WP:RS cites and links on the Stylianos Atteshlis page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylianos_Atteshlis for your consideration as requested.

Your comment was

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Stylianos Atteshlis instead.

Your comment was:

Unclear that there's any independent notability of Atteshlis from the group he founded. No useable sources here; of the three references, one is to a wikipedia article (Stylianos Atteshlis), and the other two are to non-WP:RS. Of course, Stylianos Atteshlis is unsourced as well, and tagged for that for six years, so I'm going to nominate that for AfD.

Are these 3rd party source citations what is needed to remove the AFD submission?

Let me know if you need anything else

thanks

Daniel

Anukpaba (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anukpaba: As I mentioned elsewhere, if you're commenting on whether Stylianos Atteshlis should be deleted or not, please make those comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stylianos Atteshlis. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

In case the ping does not work, you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CIR_problems?. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Dear Roy Smith,

I read your reason for declining the article on Rob Wynne, and I am struggling to understand your reasons. This article is no different from those of many other living artists, such as Joan Jonas, and my references are published references, not "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." I'm wondering if the lists of exhibitions are the problem. If so, I would gladly delete them. However, I do not want to go through the submission process again, possibly resulting in a decline, unless I know exactly what I need to do to "fix" the article. Thank you. Joellyn520 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Joellyn Ausanka

I've responded in a comment on the draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:WakingApp

Hello there, regarding the Draft:WakingApp. I added more cites before resubmitting and they are huge in Israel, can you please have a look again? since I removed he pr (didnt know they are bad...). thanks, Mashsegli (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My comment was made after you added your sources. My comment referred you to WP:NCORP, have you read that? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith! I did read and this is why I added more sources in Hebrew - I made more changes after your last commet. There are more in Hebrew but I wasnt sure how many in not English is ok.. Would u be kind enough to have another look? Mashsegli (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The changes you made were simply to delete three references. Please go back and read WP:NCORP and try to understand what it is saying. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith I delete the PR and added Hebrew sources. I will add more now, please cheack and help me, it will be a blessing! Thanks Mashsegli (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's best if you wait for somebody else to re-review it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Gourmand World Cookbook Awards

Hi. Regarding the "reliable sources" not being enough. I'm not sure if you saw that I'm not really creating a new article but translating the article originally available in Spanish only so that it's also available in English. The article in Spanish is already approved. Please advise RoySmith I'm not sure that I was following the protocol for article translation. Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yu Jing Hao Tse (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. The various language wikipedias all have their own requirements. This often leads to issues such as this where an article that's good on one wiki gets translated to another and doesn't meet the requirements there. I don't know of any specific guidelines we have for awards, but WP:GNG covers the basics, and WP:PSTS talks about primary vs. secondary sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Draft:SocialWeaver

Hi Roy,

I was hoping you could elaborate a bit on how the SocialWeaver article is reading like an advertisement rather than a notable company. I made changes to the first draft to correct for that issue and edited it a second time to bring in more sources, so I'd like to get a clear idea of what needs to change to get the page approved.

Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orofinoedits (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the comment I left? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I did, I'm hoping you can give me a little more insight into what you mean. I understand changing the one phrase you called out, but I'm wondering how the other sections read like an advertisement. Your feedback was those sections sound like other social media management tools, but that doesn't mean that they are promotional which was the reason cited for not being approved. Can you give me a better idea of what in those sections needs to change?

Thanks! Orofinoedits (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt this is salvageable. Everything about it sounds like you're trying to sell the product. Which, I'm assuming you are. Do you have a relationship with the subject company? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 23:16:18, 5 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Adrian29630

• Adrian29630 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Adrian29630 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alberto_Ulloa I have received your note advising this item is not acceptable because it contains copyright material. I am not sure what this actually relates to? You provide a link to a public webpage which is, therefore, something in the public domain and not copyright and although I can see there is some detail which is equivalent as it is about an individual and his life that is almost inevitable. There is much said in that webpage not included in the article submission as well as much in the article not included in the webpage.

Having said that if you can indicate what specific part of the article you feel could be subject to copyright I am happy to remove it to enable the article to meet the required standard.

Can you please advise on this.

Thank you

Adrian29630 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The Childhood section is a direct copy of text from the Art Caribe web page. What makes you think that page is in the public domain? You might want to read Wikipedia:Public domain to start exploring what public domain means. In a nutshell, this text isn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft Alberto Ulloa

Hello RoySmith,

I have also now spoken to the writer of that blog who is happy to give permission for anything he has mentioned in the blog to be reproduced but I do not know how you (Wiki) would require evidence of permission? Perhaps you can advise?

As the reference to childhood is a relatively minor item would removing it completely allow the rest to be accepted, or are there any other problems to rectify?

Many thanks

Adrian29630 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Adrian29630: I responded to your initial query in the section directly above this. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryan Saha (2nd nomination)

In regard to the AfD for Aryan Saha, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryan Saha (2nd nomination), I believe you may have userfied the page to the wrong userspace. User:Aryan Saha has made no edits. The article was created by User:Wikirecord and they requested that the article be userfied to their own userspace. Also, it is not apparent to me that User:Wikirecord is the same person as Aryan Saha, so the issues raised regarding autobiography do not clearly apply in this situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, looks like I got confused there. Thanks for pointing it out. @Wikirecord: you should be able to move the page to your own userspace, please feel free to do so. If you have any problem doing that, ping me and I'll be happy to handle it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith thank you sir, i will let you know in case i face any problem -- Wikirecord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Blended Mobility

Hi Roy, thanks for the review of Blended Mobility Draft. I've added an extra source (a presentation of the European Commission). I also read the comment on the EducationProject wiki page. Actually I'm not agree with the comment it's neologism. It's really a new concept (at least in Europe) that happens more and more. Students are not familiar with this term that's why I added this to wikipedia so I can refer to this article to explain the different possibilities to gain an international experience. Can you give me some extra comments to get this approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davy.dewinne (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I assume you've seen this comment. You say it's a new concept. How is that different from it being a neologism? In any case, the review process is a group effort. Be patient and eventually somebody else will add more comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Roy... I have just seen you opened an investigation for sockpuppetry for my account and it is true I only signed in yesterday on wikipedia on request to check grammar and vocabulary text for draft: Alex Litt (photographer). I wanted to explain that I am not connected to any other accounts which edited before me. When given request I had no knowledge of previous existing draft so when I clicked to create a new one with apparently same name the code was already inserted so I didn't pay much attention and focused on overall view of that text(that I found acceptable by my personal merits). I apologize for the inconvience of not checking thoroughly about WP:YFA which looking upon now I obviously should. with regards -- Karinyuuki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How to change name of a wikipedia page

Hello sir,im having trouble to change wikipedia page name will you please guide me how to change a wikipedia page name. Niel4466 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The details differ depending on which client you're using (i.e. web, android, ios, etc). The generic instructions are at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Hmmm, looking at Wikipedia:Moving a page, it does seem a bit impenetrable. Help:How to move a page has a more straight-forward explanation. Please let me know if you need any more assistance. If you really get stuck, give me the page name and what you would like it renamed to, and I can handle it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see you don't meet the have had the account for four days and made at least ten article edits with it) requirement to be able to move pages. You've got the edit count, but not the four days. What page is it that you want to move? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Student Loan Hero

Hi @RoySmith, and thank you for taking the time to look at my draft article on Student Loan Hero! After reading your comments, I feel the article might actually be close to ready. Here are two points, please let me know where I'm wrong here:

1) I see the issue with articles written by Student Loan Hero and published by USA Today, CNBC and MarketWatch -- I just had them there to show how Student Loan Hero contributes content to those outlets. However, if you look at footnotes 13,14 & 15, they all refer to articles written by staffers at CNBC, USA Today and Motley Fool which cover surveys from Student Loan Hero (and the articles usually focus just on the Student Loan Hero study and nothing else). I would argue that if major media is talking about something created by a given group, then it supports that group's notability and meets both WP:RS and WP:NCORP. (In fact, this seems to be what was used to justify creation of LendEDU's article, judging from the description there) Please let me know if I'm wrong here, but if not, should I write in more detail about how other established media cite Student Loan Hero's surveys and studies?

2) In terms of whether LendEDU can be used for notability, I thought that because its Wikipedia page compares it to LendingTree and that it garners 150K+ references on Google when excluding the site itself, that it would be significant enough. No worries if that's not the case, but I would like to ask whether it would help establish WP:NCORP if I include articles from major media (New York Times, Business Insider, etc) that either (a) talk about Student Loan Hero, but also focus on the CEO's personal story and how he founded the company, and/or (b) articles that do focus on the company but only in 3 or 4 paragraphs in a wider story about the student loan crisis.

I'd be grateful for any further help on this -- I do feel that Student Loan Hero deserves an article on Wikipedia, since many of similar-but-smaller organizations already have their own articles, but I want to do this the right way and not try to sneak it onto the site. If you're busy though, please let me know, and I'll try to find another editor or get help at the Teahouse

Thank you again! --- Mike Kitchen (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• CNBC is not about Student Loan Hero (SLH). It's about Princeton University and student debt. It just happens to use data collected by SLH, which is mentioned once.

• USA Today is likewise not about SLH. It's about saving for college, and just includes a quote from a SLH press release.

• Motley Fool is also not about SLH. It is an article about student debt and mentions the SLH study in passing.

This is not what WP:ORGCRIT is talking about when it says, significant coverage. The fact that LendEDU has a wikipedia page, or that it's compared to some other company, or the number of hits you get in a google search are all meaningless when determining if SLH is notable. As for the other possible sources you suggest, it's impossible for me to answer your question without seeing the specific sources. The best I can recommend is that you read WP:NCORP and in particular the WP:ORGCRIT section of that page. Those are the criteria by which your article will be judged.

I should also note that the fact that other, smaller, companies have wikipedia pages is also meaningless. Please see WP:OSE.

Regarding, After reading your comments, I feel the article might actually be close to ready, I must disagree. I tried in my initial comments to be gentle, but I also want to make sure my gentleness isn't misinterpreted as being unduly encouraging. If my comments led you to believe that the article is close to ready, I fear I failed there. So let me be somewhat more clear. Based on what I've read, and my experience with many other drafts about similar size companies, all of whom are eager to get a wikipedia article written about themselves, I think it is quite unlikely that SLH could meet our notability requirements. You are welcome to keep editing, and researching better sources, but I would not be doing my job if I left you with the impression that I was optimistic about this draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Roy - Thank you for your candid comments and your time spent reviewing my questions, I appreciate your honesty, though I do feel that Student Loan Hero does deserve a place on Wikipedia, but that I'm just not providing the correct information or doing it in the correct way.

I do have one question for you before I revise - I think I wasn't clear, the 3 links you mention in the response. All three of those were articles based solely on a Student Loan Hero study or survey (In one case, they specifically mention the company only once, but you'll see that the entire report is spent discussing the findings.) I see that some Wikipedia articles like this establish notability by pointing to all the research that gets cited from the company in question, but am I wrong here? If major media outlets are writing reports about the Student Loan Hero studies/surveys, would writing more about this in the article help with notability?

Thanks much for any help/advice you can give me on this specific issue (And btw, I hope I did right by moving this thread to the end of list. My understanding was that this is what we're supposed to do, but my apologies if I got this wrong.) Mike Kitchen (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We have a saying, Other Stuff Exists. What that means is that using other articles is a poor way to judge the suitability of any specific article in question. Sometimes other articles just slipped through the cracks. Sometimes they reflect looser standards that were enforced in the past. Or just different judgement calls on the part of people who reviewed them. The standard for articles about companies is WP:CORP, and in particular, the WP:ORGCRIT section of that page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I did look through the Other Stuff Exists guidelines earlier and understand that only certain types of article subjects (high schools, for example) can be approved this way. I do have more reviews I could cite that are independent BUT come from relatively small publications (such as this one from Credit Donkey and this one from Consumer Advocate.) Would it be a waste of time to add them? (These reviews and others I have are from sources that aren't large enough to have their own Wikipedia page like TechCrunch, LendEDU, etc.) I bring this up because other WP editors have indicated the reviews I cite in the article are acceptable, but I just don't have enough of them.

Meanwhile, I also want to ask whether it's fair for me to argue that the studies and surveys cited in major media count because those studies are Student Loan Hero's products. (Of course, I mean only reports that are solely based on Student Loan Hero studies, as in this case in USA Today, for example)

Again, thanks for your help in this, and please let me know if you feel I'm wasting your time or would rather I query Teahouse. I understand you have a lot of articles to deal with here. Mike Kitchen (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you're wasting my time, but by the same token, I think it's better if you just be patient and let somebody else come along and review your article. We all start from the same guidelines and policies, but everybody brings their own slant to it. It's good to get input from different reviewers. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for your time all the same Mike Kitchen (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Shriver Hall Concert Series article rejection

I'd like to request that you reconsider your rejection of the my article about Shriver Hall Concert Series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shriver_Hall_Concert_Series) in Baltimore on the grounds that 1) the sources I use do in fact establish legitimacy of the Series as an important concert presenter in the region, and 2) similar articles regarding other concert presenters in the US have been published on Wikipedia with far less in terms of references. Some don't even include sources beyond the official website and provide no external references. Please see Philadelphia Chamber Music Society, University Musical Society, Rockport Music, Hopkins Center for the Arts, and The Music Hall (Portsmouth) for examples.

We don't make decisions based on WP:OSE arguments. There are a lot of articles that should never have been created, and their existence doesn't mean we should have more of them. My suggestion is to keep hunting for better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Do the additional sources that I added to the most recent resubmission help at all?

Not really. My main objection was that all the coverage is local. You added two references to a Johns Hopkins website, which don't do anything for non-local coverage. You also added two references to San Francisco events, but they aren't about the subject. They're about Timo Andres, and just mention the Shriver series in passing, as part of Andres's biography. Both of those sources are also WP:PRIMARY; they're on the web sites for venues that are hosting performances by Andres. More than that, the close similarity in wording between the two makes me assume that they're both just rehashed from a press release or official biography of Andres. WP:ORGCRIT and WP:AUD (two sections of the same page) are probably the best places to look for guidance on what we need for sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft : Zehra Neşe Kavak

Hello @RoySmith: Errors corrected for article. Can you check it. Errors were removed. Thank you.

Barber surgeons guild

Hello Roy- can you let me know what you’d like to see changed in the Barber Surgeons Guild company profile. There are many legitimate articles and citations which lend credibility and the article was written in a neutral position. Please advise. Thanks Justinrome425 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I could point out specific sentences which are especially promotional in tone, but that would be pointless. The whole thing is an advertisement for a fancy barbershop which hasn't done anything notable. I can't see any path to this becoming a valid encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Barber Surgeons Guild

Hi Roy. I appreciate your feedback. Please note the brand has done a lot notable and is revolutionizing the medical men’s grooming space. It is not a barbershop. It is a product line and medical spa brand, and soon will have international presence. I encourage you to please review our references and also the website. I’m happy to make changes you that you feel have a promotional tone if you can point them out for me. The article is not meant to sound promotional and that is not the intention - but rather a company profile- so please let me know your thoughts so I can make the appropriate edits. Unfortunately there is little known about this space. Thank you for your time and consideration. Justinrome425 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 13:58:09, 15 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by ContentSquare

• ContentSquare (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ContentSquare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Roy, Would you be able to highlight which parts of the submission didn't pass muster? I was careful to reference reliable sources. Would it help if I removed references to any accolades? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ContentSquare

ContentSquare (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, pretty much everything about it is trying to promote the company. Including, I now notice, your username, which is in violation of WP:SPAMNAME, so you'll need to get a new one. Beyond that, please read WP:NCORP for our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority - Submission declined on 14 May 2018

Hello RoySmith,

Would you be able to direct me on where to find the information to correct this? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bl-nws#Copyright_violation) I resubmitted the Draft: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority with copyright tags and posted in the edit summary that I had added them and submitted the Declaration of Consent granting a Creative Commons License 3.0 and GNU free documentation license for http://mhtrust.org/mhtawp/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/18-MHT-0671-Annual-Report-3A-Pages-for-Web-LG.pdf to the permissions-en email address.

Should I have waited for the response from permissions before resubmitting? I entered it because the page on copyrights said that I needed to include a link to the article in question in the email along with appropriate documentation, and there was no article to link without it being submitted. Is it a matter of not having put in the correct code or not placing an attribution in the correct place?

Please advise on how best to proceed, Bl-nws (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)As an Alaskan myself I am aware of this organization and the role it plays around the state. I believe we probably could have a decent article on it. However, copyright or no, the article cannot simply be materials supplied by the trust itself. So trying to prove permisssion is basically going to be a dead end as far as creating an article goes.

While a primary source like that can be useful in establishing the most basic facts about an article subject, it simply cannot be the basis of the entire article. Instead, what is needed is to find independent reliable sources such as newspaper articles or other media coverage that discuss the trust, and to use those sources as a guide to write an original article here that reflects the neutral point of view expected of an encyclopedia. You may want to check out your first article for more details, and I would be remiss if I did not also mention our policies on conflicts of interest and paid editing and disclosure in the event that either apply to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bl-nws: Beeblebrox has already explained one aspect of this, but there's other factors as well. You pasted some license templates into your submission. How do we know that's valid? You've created an account, but we have no way to reliably trace that account back to a real person, nor do we want to. So how do we know you have authority to donate the materials? We do have a process to reliably transfer copyright, called OTRS, but that involves off-wiki communication with the MediaWikiFoundation office. I've never actually gone through the process myself, but I would imagine it requires faxing documents on company letterhead, and providing proof of your identify, such as a photo of your driver's license. And, once you've done all that, my understanding is that OTRS only applies to media such as images and audio clips. I don't think there's any such process for text. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith I was under the understanding that proving permissions that was the point of sending the signed documents and email correspondence to Wikipedia's permissions email address. I did not see any other burden of proof such as driver's license or ID listed, and as I mentioned before, submitted because a link to the page was required. I did include the conflict of interest disclosure in the article and edited down the content to be neutral. I will reach out via email and try to sort the process out, if I can. Thank you for your assistance. Bl-nws (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm only speculating about the driver's license. I do know there's some kind of off-wiki process that's more rigorous than just putting a license template an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 16 June 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)

Undelete Draft:Line-X

Someone might wanna expand it. 209.52.88.115 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Honduran_Asylum_Seeker

RoySmith, Thanks for your review of my draft Honduran Asylum Seeker

Great feedback! I've worked to address the changes you recommend in the following ways: 1. Reliable sources: Daily Mail, Esquire are gone. I've included sources from NPR, The Guardian, The White House, and FOTO Magazine, which is the original publication. 2. WP:NOTNEWS: I've added a reactions page and a legacy section. I'm not trying to write a news feature; I'm trying to frame the image relative to other significant events in photojournalism. 3. WP:NPOV: It's a controversial news event, I get it, but I described the image accurately. She is two years old. She was put down by her mother, and she did cry. These events have transpired as a consequence of a shift in immigration policy. I linked to the Wikipedia page on the Trump Administration Immigration Policy, and I linked to the White House.

I hope these changes address your concerns.

My question: Shall I resubmit now? If so, I'd like to delete your comment at the top of the page so that other reviewers can have fresh look at the piece.

This is my first Wikipedia article, so I'm not fully aware of best practices in that respect.

Thanks for your patience with the newb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowstonecoyote (talk • contribs) 18:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your revised draft yet, but some general comments are in line. First, It's not really my place to tell you when to resubmit. From what you describe, it sounds like you've addressed the issues, so resubmitting would be reasonable, but that's really up to you. Second, please leave the comment log intact. Reviewers are smart enough to see what's changed. When I'm not the first reviewer, I generally go to the history page, find the last time it was declined, and pull up the diffs from that point to see what's new. I assume most other reviewers do something similar. Lastly, the hardest part of this is going to be WP:NPOV. When I put on my wikipedia editor hat, I try really hard to divorce myself from my personal feelings. It's not always easy to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

— Thanks for your second set of comments RoySmith. I think I've addressed the issues in this set. In one comment you write, "Please don't use external links in the body of the text, per WP:EXT -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)"

However, the link is there show the photo itself, which I cannot upload due to copyright. WP:EL allows for this usage: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowstonecoyote (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, I see your point. Well, one more policy that I guess I should point out is WP:IAR! Copyright violations are one of the few rules that IAR can't fix, but including an external link in the text certainly is. Anyway, I'm going to bow out of the review process now. I think this is looking pretty good, but it'll be more useful to get additional input from other reviewers. Thanks for putting the work into this, and I hope you don't feel like I was dumping on you with all my comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

About Contentstack

Hi, Roy. Yes, I think I mistakenly uploaded the article twice. I'll just delete this one. However, the other one is still in waiting to be reviewed, isn't it?

Dsalinasgardon (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Built.io

Hello RoySmith. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Built.io, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, and potentially notable. See references. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. But, I assume you've noticed by now that it got deleted anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ruytchi Souzouki

To RoySmith about his comment. Thanks for your comment but I have to disagree. This is not a « sentence-for-sentence, presenting exactly the same facts » translation of one existing text. Several sources were used. For instance, in the very sentence that you are quoting, comparison with the autotranslation obviously reveals that the name of the « Parisian cemetery of Thiais » is not mentioned in https://www.lesatamanes.com/artistes/souzouki-ruytchi. Could you please edit your comment as you deem appropriate in view of my answer ? 89.3.14.100 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think my comment was accurate. There is an obvious similarity between the two. Yes, there are minor differences, but overall, this looks like somebody sat down with the lesatamanes page and translated it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

IBM New York Scientific Center

Earlier this week, I talked again with an IBM retiree (name S. W.) who confirms that the New York Scientific Center was big stuff in those days. However, I now believe that eventually you may want to AFD it. I ask, instead of AFD, that the article be redirected to Thomas J. Watson Research Center, where there can be a one or two sentence mention that the New York Scientific Center, along with the Morningside buildings, had their research consolidated at the Watson Research Center.

Current version of the Watson Research Center:

The new headquarters were finally located with a new lab in Yorktown Heights designed by architect Eero Saarinen completed in 1961, with the 115th Street site closing in 1970.

Possible revision:

The new headquarters were finally located with a new lab in Yorktown Heights designed by architect Eero Saarinen completed in 1961, with the 115th Street site closing in 1970. The New York Scientific Center at 410 East 62nd Street, site of computer science research for several decades and where the Geospace Mapping System was developed was also consolidated with the Watson Center.

I will check a little more and talk with that retiree about locating sources. Cowding Soup (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)