Jump to content

User talk:RoySmith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thewikisquad (talk | contribs) at 09:27, 5 January 2016 (New talk section: Deletion Of Page: Peer Viqar Ul Aslam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

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.

DRV

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.

-- 18:32, Saturday, August 3, 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


The Weight of Chains 2

Racism

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

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan

Hi RoySmith. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your rationale a little for your closing of this AfD as keep, given the large number of SPAs (6 of the 10 keep !votes, including one user that has been subsequently blocked as the sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor) and the contentious history of meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing for longevity-related articles. While I obviously see no consensus to delete, I do think that the AfD would have benefited from being relisted to gain broader community input, or at least being closed as "no consensus". Thanks. Canadian Paul 18:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only distinction that really matters is delete vs. not delete. I suppose this could have been closed as NC, but I just don't see that it's worth arguing the distinction between NC and Keep. Either way, the article is kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean. Delete vs. non-delete is the least important distinction; the actual number of votes only matters when there are many strong arguments for both sides. Much more important is the strength of the arguments and their relation to policy, which none of the SPAs really engage. Thus I feel that keeping the discussion open to get more outside input would have been valuable; otherwise the type of meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing that characterizes the problems surrounding these articles is encouraged. Would you consider reverting your close and relisting the article so that the ultimate result can be more representative of community consensus? Canadian Paul 16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think you misunderstood my comment (which is to say, I phrased it poorly). When I said, The only distinction that really matters is delete vs. not delete, I didn't mean people's !votes, I meant the final outcome. In other words, I'll put a lot of effort into deciding if I'm going to close something as delete vs. anything else. But, when it comes down to deciding if I should close something as keep vs. NC, I don't see that as such a critical decision, and thus put less effort into that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the close to NC. Thank you for your enquiry. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thanks for clarifying. I was considering a DRV, but on closer inspection I think that would just be a waste of everyone's time. If people want to nominate it again years in the future, they can now see that there was no consensus and then make their decision from there. I don't see these supercentenarian articles as inherently non-notable (I even worked on bringing three to GA status through proper sourcing), but I do feel that there are many who don't merit a stand-alone article. If a few borderline cases have their own article though, it's not the end of the world. Canadian Paul 18:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody wants to renominate it years in the future, it really doesn't matter what this close was. Community norms change over time. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Please delete the article's twin, List of directors who won the Academy, BAFTA, DGA, Golden Globe, and Critic's Choice Award for a single film. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I saw consensus for that. Do me a favor; ping all the participants in the original AfD, ask them to chime in here, and if nobody objects in a day or two, I'll consider that part of the original consensus and delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No probalo. @Sideways713: @Chunky Rice: @FuriouslySerene: @Pincrete: @166.137.96.95: @Wikimandia: @Blaze The Movie Fan: @Matt294069: @JayJay: --Monochrome_Monitor 20:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do support deletion of that article. I don't see how this is useful for Wikipedia. Maybe it's useful for some website that has statics, but that's not what Wikipedia is for unless it's notable. And since actors/directors get nominated in multiple award shows all the time it's not. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion; the grouping doesn't work any better with directors than actors. Sideways713 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion.Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also supporting deletion Matt294069 is coming 23:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While you're all here, shouldn't this be deleted as well? It's an analogous grouping for television and similarly arbitrary. @Sideways713: @Chunky Rice: @FuriouslySerene: @Pincrete: @166.137.96.95: @Wikimandia: @Blaze The Movie Fan: @Matt294069: @JayJay: List of actors who won the Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, Primetime Emmy, SAG, and TCA Award for a single performance in television --Monochrome_Monitor 09:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion for both per same reasons. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, just for the record. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration (prodded by Thincat's comment), I've opened AfDs for these two. Perhaps I'm being overly bureaucratic, but it's cleaner this way. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thincat (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably support deletion of both, but I endorse Thincat's stance and RoySmith's action that this needs to be AfD'd.Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence Gonstead

Would it be unreasonable, for you to reopen this and relist for further discussion, I've just presented the sources and argued WP:AUTHOR. I think the discussion may turn, I've just presented policy based rationale and that his technique is used by 58% of chiropractors which was missed earlier. I just got involved a few hours ago. Valoem talk contrib 22:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem asked me to look for sources about the subject. Here is my research. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Way too much for me to read. As I've mentioned in the past, brevity is a virtue. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the sources presented were discussed and dismissed, so I'm going to pass on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roy? We've both been around for a long time, how often do we see prior voters in an AfD change their vote? Barely anytime was given to the arguments presented (only a few hours), I was looking for more participation, on top of that, I thought AfD is not a vote, was my arguments not stronger? Please reconsider, would this not be better than DRV? Valoem talk contrib 11:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've both been around a long time. The AfD was running for two weeks. You knew where to find it if you wanted to participate. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it at the time it was not on my watchlist, plus AfDs can be opened for a month, you've always been reasonable, perhaps if you could userfy it to my space + talk page, I can work on it and add sources. I'll ping you when I think it is ready and you can decide if another AfD is required. This is better than other bureaucratic processes in my opinion. Valoem talk contrib 12:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Draft:Clarence Gonstead. More useful than pinging me would be pinging all the other participants in the original AfD; they did the review, I'm just the clerk. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get the talk page too. So do you mind if when the article is ready I restore and ping the nominator? It is best to get permission from the closer. Valoem talk contrib 14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Clarence Gonstead restored in-place. As for permission from the closer, I have a somewhat less protective view of these things than many people. Like I said, I'm just the clerk. My job was to close the AfD, and I've done that. I don't feel any sense of ownership here, so it's not my place to be giving people permission to do things or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in these situation I find it easier to act with administrative approval than without, I guess your leaving discretion up to me? Valoem talk contrib 14:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Scary, isn't it? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain...

In your recent closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Sarah Coyne you wrote: "The result was delete. There's a clear numerical consensus to delete. Moreover, looking at the keep arguments, I don't see any which are either policy-based or persuasive."

I request clarification please. Since these discussions aren't votes, a "clear numerical consensus", whether it is to keep or delete, or some other action, is of secondary importance, correct. It is my understanding that the closing administrator's role includes discounting opinions that are ill-informed, or counter-policy.

Many of those voicing "delete" opinions stated some variation of "Coyne is not notable because she hasn't actually done anything". I thought these claims were counter-policy, and explained why. I thought the closing administrator would either agree with me, and discount those opinions, or they would explain why they didn't agree with me.

Some of those voicing "delete" opinions stated that Coyne was an instance of a BLP1e person. I thought these opinions were mistaken, and explained why. I thought the closing administrator would either agree with me, and discount those opinions, or they would explain why they didn't agree with me.

Sorry, but it seems to me that if the questionable delete opinions, those that are clearly counter-policy or ill-informed, are no longer counted, there is no longer "a clear numerical consensus" to delete.

So, I would appreciate it, if you tried to explain why you found my explanations of why the "hasn't done anything" argument was counter-policy unpersuasive. I'd appreciate it if you would explain why my explanation of why BLP1e didn't apply wasn't persuasive. Geo Swan (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When there is this strong a supermajority (I count 11:3) the arguments on the majority side need to be exceptionally unfounded to be ignored. I did not see that. I saw reasonable arguments put forth why this person did not meet our notability standards. Really, this one seems about as straightforward as they get. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DelRev

I'm not asking you to reopen them, but I think summarily closing good faith requests however unlikely to be granted is not a good idea. It would be possible to argue that all the arguments were not based on policy, and the closer made the mistake of accepting them. The two you closed yesterday & today were of course not this way, being correct applications of policy, but I have seen some that were, tho more often in the past than recently. One person should not be the judge of that in an appeal process, no matter how right they are. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, and perhaps I allowed myself to get a little hasty. Yet, I think it's important to take a step back and look at what we're trying to do here. In a court of law, people have rights, and all the legal processes exist to protect those rights. But, we're not a court of law, or a social network. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Sometimes it seems that we've lost sight of that, to the detriment of our primary goal. That being said, if you (or anybody else who wanders by here) feels I acted inappropriately, I have no problem with you reverting my closes. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

The article S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) has been nominated for deletion. You might be interested in participating in the discussion as someone who contributed to the previous discussion. StAnselm (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetteer

First let me say that I appreciate your work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. When doing some unrelated clean-up, I noticed your comment of 22 November 2015 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matakana War Memorial, namely I can find no policy which says that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. I was rather surprised at that, since the first pillar of the Wikipedia, as stated at Wikipedia:Five pillars says: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Not a policy, but in the heirarchy of guidelines and policies, fundamental prinicples generally rank higher. Anyway, I thought that you'd be amused, and with luck, not too chagrined. Take care. --Bejnar (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Hello RoySmith: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 18:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Almost New Year (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Hello RoySmith:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.

North America1000 21:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Hooray for America

Re your block of Hooray for America -- who is the sockmaster? NE Ent 00:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it's obvious this is not a new user. Brand new users don't find their way to DRV a few hours after first creating their account. And he's clearly being disruptive. We don't need this. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened upon this ---and was once a recipient of some screwed up wrong block--- so followed it. It really got interesting when he was screaming his innocence and asking for help. He was cleared of the CU, as far as what that means because there are evidently ways to avoid it, then he was reinstated. I just happened to look at his contributions and found he was blocked ---again.
My wonderment is that he was reinstated on some short rope then ---then gone again. I didn't look at "the whole picture" (and some of it I can't see) so thought I would inquire as the rationale seems weird. First, Let me state: I am all for protecting Wikipedia. I do it almost daily from my point, but would like to know why an immediate block was placed on what looks like suspicions. My curiosity for this, since the resulting block for sock puppet was cleared---is that he passed the CU (?), he stated he was wrongly blocked, apparently for comments to whom I guess is an admin, and I didn't see where he made other edits or comments. If I am not mistaken he did admit that he had edited before and didn't have an account, but this wasn't questioned any further. This could be a reason he knew some of the ropes. He could also be smarter than credit has allowed, to figure the DRV out, or I suppose smart enough to be able to game the system. I am not sure what he did that was disruptive if he was wrongly blocked, so would like some insight if you don't mind? Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New user shows up, gets in the middle of a highly controversial debate right off the bat, reopens a DRV that had just been speedy closed, reverts the close of that DRV, is quoting obscure sections of administrative policy, knows about WP:ANI, knows about checkuser, etc. Let's get real. This isn't some innocent newbie. This is somebody who knows all the ins and outs, and has both an agenda and an attitude. That's an unwelcome combination. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Security Practices and Research Student Association Page

Hello,

We would like to request that you undelete the Security Practices and Research Student Association page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Practices_and_Research_Student_Association

We use it to log history for our club and events that occur each year. For information on our club, please see our site here http://sparsa.org/ and here http://ists.sparsa.org/

If you need anymore information from us, please feel free to reach out to us at eboard@sparsa.org.

Sparsaeboard (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Of Page: Peer Viqar Ul Aslam

I would like to contest the pages deletion as many sources have been neglected by the reviewers, I smell rat on the reviews done by user: Kashmiri... I would like you to reconsider the page and revert there deletion! Thank you! Thewikisquad (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Thewikisquad (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&oldid=698313525"