User talk:RoySmith

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

We are murdering Wikipedia

I'm a killer, what's your excuse for murdering Wikipedia? Killer Chihuahua 18:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-loathing, I guess. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page for KBong (Musician)

Thanks Mr. Smith for your guidance. I will review in detail. My son and I have set up separate accounts, so we would like to keep both. I am contributing to other Wikipedia pages. Thank you again. WBong (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and your son are perfectly welcome to both have accounts. All that's required is that each of you only use your own account, and both of you also declare on your user page your conflict of interest. There's no requirement that you disclose your personal relationship (i.e. father-son), but both of you should disclose that you are connected to the subject of the article. This is typically done by putting a Template:UserboxCOI on your user page, i.e. something like {{UserboxCOI|1=Kevin Bong}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interlink for « Citizens Convention for ecological transition »

Hello. I prepare a correction of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Citizens_convention_for_ecological_transition) - which indeed, is a translation from the French(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_citoyenne_pour_la_transition_%C3%A9cologique).

I precised in the « Talk » section of the Draft that it is a translation. Does it comply with your demand now ? Still, I can't figure how to add an interlink to the French version…

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.26.58 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your note. There's still some technical issues to be resolved, but I'll fix those up myself and get the article accepted today. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. I just have seen that the interlink works perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlicanteL (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of: Draft:Parks on the Air - Update

Thank you for quickly reviewing the article and providing excellent help with removing primary sources! I reviewed the references, and yes, many of them were directly involved in the subject of the article you reviewed Draft:Parks on the Air. So, I've done a lot of cleanup (please see the edited history), and I think that it's ready for resubmission (or, at least is very close). If you have some time to give it another quick looksie, I'd appreciate it. :) Thanks Zul32 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:THREE. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks.. I think I'm good with WP:RS for the sources, but the WP:SIGCOV will certainly need to be addressed, so I'll try to cut the number of sources down to 3-4 references as you recommended. I'll do another update when I'm done. Zul32 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not asking that you remove sources from the article. I'm just asking that you list here, or as a comment on the draft, what the three best sources are, to help reviewers like me know what's most important to look at. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OH! OK, well too late, and it was probably for the better anyway. Now, it's reduced down to seven; more significant articles, which actually now reference the phrase 'parks on the air'. I thought this would probably be better since a generic article that just mentions a park that ham radio operators went to and got on the air wasn't notable enough. So, of the seven in the article, #2 mentions NPOTA, and #5 mentions Canada NPOTA, the rest refers to POTA directly. So, feel free to go to any three you want to look at them. Hope that works. Thanks Zul32 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Aldergrove Star one looks the most on-point to me, but I'm not sure it's enough. My suggestion is to resubmit it and see what the next reviewer has to say. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:53:57, 19 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Emlei

Emlei (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ready, Set, Food! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which part sounds highly promotional and what can I do to improve this?

Emlei (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to disclose your connection with the company, per WP:COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:51:43, 20 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rbiweb

Rbiweb (talk · contribs)
- User:Rbiweb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Landlubber_Jeans I've been told I can't copy and paste text or use copyrighted material even if it is my own. However, I'm not sure where you see a problem. If you will please show me where you found a problem I'd be happy to make corrections. Rbiweb (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rbiweb (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the comment I left. Where it says, "See Earwig for some copy-paste issues that need to be fixed", the word Earwig is a link. Click on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamism of a Soccer Player (Boccioni)

I accepted this. You wrote " The only references are to MOMA, i.e. WP:PRIMARY sources. We need WP:SECONDARY sources which talk about the painting." I consider this a misunderstanding. The only primary source that's relevant here is the painting itself. The MOMA catalog information is a reliable secondary source from an unquestionable authoritative institution. It may have some sort ofcoi because it owns the painting, but it is nonetheless universally accepted as the basic reliable source, with the only possible more reliable source a monograph on the artist.. And since it is our practice that any painting collected by a major museum justifies an article,and since MOMA is one of theleading museums famous throught the world, nothing mroe really needs to be shown. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I defer to your better judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC

September 25, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

Wednesday September 25 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki).

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan

(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team ~~~~~

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

A brownie for you!

For pitching in on Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pod mod article raised at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Electronic cigarette topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 QuackGuru (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Annular lift fan aircraft

Is it clear if this was a copyvio? [1] matches, but do we know anything about the order and which was copied from where?

It's also licensed there https://encyclopedia.pub/termsofuse as CC-by, so we could potentially use it anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Interesting. I had looked at the TOU page you cite, but didn't get past section 2, "... the copyright of the website belongs to MDPI ...". It never occurred to me that section 3 might be what they were referring to as, "otherwise stated". I do note that the disk loading vs. power loading graph is noted, "original work by S. Paul Dev of D-STAR Engineering Corp., Shelton, CT, USA, reproduced with permission". I suspect that permission may not include uploading it to Commons, where it's annotated as "own work".

As for the who-copied-who part, I just assumed that since this was a draft, it was likely that we copied from them. Archive.org doesn't have that URL in their database, for whatever that's worth. @Ryanyunjiang: who maybe can provide some additional information, and let's hold off deciding what to do until we hear from him. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have deleted the pages in encyclopedia.pub. ryanyunjiang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanyunjiang (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't answer the question of what was copied from where, and the copyright permission status of the disk loading vs. power loading graph image. Can you fill in the details of what's going on here? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. Because Wikipedia needs to review, I posted the article on another website at that time,too, which published immediately without review. Now I have deleted the article from that website. All information and copyright come from my published papers, which have got copyright permission of the graph from the author.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanyunjiang (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a reasonable explanation, thanks. I've restored the draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When will the review be finished?Ryanyunjiang (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave it to another reviewer, so it's hard to predict how long. Unfortunately, the review queue is rather long these days, so it might be weeks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very busy at present (two weeks), but I am actively looking at this article. As soon as I have some basic tidying done I'll move it live into mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One other point, if this is a summary of your own research, you need to disclose that. Please see WP:COI for how to do that properly. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring this draft. COI is certainly an issue and is much easier dealt with as early as possible. It's no reason at all why the article can't exist, especially as you (Ryan) produced it as a draft and other editors have been working on it since. But WP doesn't like anything where they think something has been "hidden", no matter how innocently, or how wrong an impression that would be.

Have other groups been working in this field and have published? It would be a stronger article if we could cover that too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking how to disclose. I don't know if other groups are working in this field. Ryanyunjiang (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have disclosed a connection to this article. I am not sure if I did it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanyunjiang (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recordman

@RoySmith: RoySmith (talk) I am curious why you want to delete my user page. I have just become engaged with wikipedia activities recently, and merely updated my user page that was already there. It is true I have just developed 2 supplements, having done 40 years research on nutrition and health span, and many scientific publications about my research. I used to have a wikipedia page written about me that was deleted without my knowledge, restored without my knowledge, and then deleted again. I have no idea why. But please help me be more useful in sharing knowledge of how the world can stay healthier and save fortunes by documented simple steps. Rocordman (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocordman: because you are trying to use wikipedia to promote your own business. That is very much what wikipedia is not for. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for your hard work and help as I navigate and learn. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The_Brotherhood_of_Saint_Sophia

Thanks for trying to assist my draft page with an image of what is called the Brotherhood Building of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. No, what you found is in no way related to Bulgakov’s Brotherhood of Saint Sophia. The photo you found is part of this complex: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Sophia%27s_Cathedral,_Kiev. Bulgakov’s group operated out of Paris and I am not aware of any physical landmark in existence for it as I do not think they ever had property associated with their group. If you can give any advice as regards what I do have listed in the current content, such as improper formatting, etc., that would be helpful. I would not like to see the draft for such an important theological movement rejected due to my own incompetence. 🙏 DErnestWachter (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DErnestWachter: Hi, and thanks for your note. I'm not an expert on religious subjects, so I'm going to leave the actual review to somebody else, but I can give you a few general thoughts. First, you don't actually say up front what the subject is. Typically, the first sentence of an article like this would read, The Brotherhoold of Saint Sophia was a religious order which existed from..... Or, if religious order isn't correct, then monastary, or church, or whatever the correct term is. Think of the first paragraph as your elevator story; you discover you're sharing an elevator with somebody important and you've got 30 seconds to tell them the most critical things about what they need to know. No time to waste telling them anything that's not super-important. I'd leave off the long list of names, or at least push them down to later in the article.

You should also look at WP:Inline citation for how to format references. I've added a "References" section, and a {{reflist}} template, which gets you a reference list more in the generally accepted style. We don't require that sources be available on-line, but if some of these are available on-line, including a URL where they can be access would be useful. If not, then including an ISBN number would be very helpful for people trying to locate paper copies in a library.

I hope some of that is useful to you. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2019-40

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

Last week's Tech News had delivery problems. Some did not get the newsletter. Some got it more than one time. The problem where some pages got it three times should now be fixed. [2]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 October. It will be on all wikis from 3 October (calendar).

Meetings

You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 2 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working on a watchlist expiry feature. This means you can put things on your watchlist for a period of time instead of forever. They are looking for feedback on the questions they have.
Special:Contributions will get the standard OOUI look. This makes it easier to use on mobile and makes it look like other Special: pages. There is a script you can use to make the form smaller if you want to. [3]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infoshops

Hi thanks for the restoration of Template:Infoshops, i was wondering if it is possible to restore the talkpage as well? Much obliged Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My apologies, I should have remembered to do that the first time. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enquirers about my recent article on Wikipedia

Hi Roy, i can see you rejected my article. I wanted to start a discussion on the specific reason for doing so. My article link is [4]

Your comments say that the article seemed to be more like an advertisement, where it should be written from a neutral point of view and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.

I have attached around 30+ articles depicting different sources (newspapers from India) which are written by different independent authors as referneces. Can you let me know why you think these are not creditable sources? Each event in the article is substantiated with numerous such articles from different news papers which depict specific events of life of the subject in the article. Can you list the issues so that I can work on those and republish the article?

Awaiting you response on this. Manas.chafekar (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're not going to like the answer. The entire article is written to show the subject in the best possible light. This is not surprising, given that you are apparently a family relation of the subject. This is why editors are strongly urged to refrain from WP:COI editing. I do not believe it is possible that any amount of editing will make this article acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a collection of all the references i sought from internet from independent sources and news papers in India. You can open any article i have referenced in this page and you will see that i have only taken parts out of these references. I am not the one who is portraying the subject in best possible light, it is the references. My article is a mere structured collection of them. Setting aside the bias of CoI, which btw i have already declared, why cant this article be published. I am sure i am not the first person to publish an article which is CoI and can pass. Can you give me a few examples which i may check/ rewrite so that this article can be published. Again, the source is all given in reference and i am only quoting the facts out in public domain. I am eager to make changes so that this article can be published, so i am open to your suggestions, advise.

Manas.chafekar (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:35:02, 1 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 2A02:C7F:8CCB:8600:794E:962B:BD47:9469

2A02:C7F:8CCB:8600:794E:962B:BD47:9469 (talk · contribs)
- User:Criosdean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thank you for reviewing my Draft: Battle of Sollas page on 30 September 2019. Unfortunately, it was deleted as you said it contained copyrighted material. I would be grateful if you could tell me what part(s) gave you cause for concern as I thought I had given suitable citations and the information was either out of copyright or in the public domain. I am keen to correct any errors on my part and I would appreciate your assistance as I am sure you can tell I am (very) new to writing an article for wiki.

Criosdean

(2A02:C7F:8CCB:8600:794E:962B:BD47:9469 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

2A02:C7F:8CCB:8600:794E:962B:BD47:9469 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy not regarding User:RoySmith/sandbox/temp

Hey, removing boilerplate for a personal courtesy notice. It was tagged, and it did meet copyvio; may I suggest that if you decide to work on this, you do so off-Wikipedia until you've gotten all the potential copyvio stuff out? It would prevent possible issues. Killer Chihuahua 13:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Killer Chihuahua 14:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]