User talk:RoySmith

Help fixing draft

I added some more sources and references to my article. In your opinion do you think it is qualified to be a Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Let%27s_Talk_Elections

Free Republic of Verdis deletion

Us, the citizens did not vote for this to be deleted. We were against it being deleted.

Our pronunciations-in-intro pet peeve

Hey there, I just wanted to say, I strongly agree with your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#How_much_hatnote_is_too_much? about overflowing pronunciation guides (but I figured I'd reply here to avoid pulling that discussion off topic). I recently read something in the MOS about this which I took note of, because it seemed shockingly sensible and yet poorly observed. From MOS:FIRST:

Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc, which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere.

Though I guess for a stub like your Likhi Range example there's not a lot of "elsewhere" places to put them. Colin M (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that MOS passage. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm sure I'll make use of it in the future! -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Regional at Best

You cited my draft, Regional at Best (Twenty One Pilots album) was a duplicate of the other and that's why it was declined. However, our drafts our completely different despite covering the same topic. the other only covers the discontinuation while mine covers that, the background, the promotions, and future of the album. I ask that you please reconsider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Regional_at_Best_(Twenty_One_Pilots_album)#Regional_at_Best

-K-popguardian (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't publish multiple articles on the same topic. See WP:CFORK for more on that. On the other hand, please also see WP:Ownership of content; there's nothing to prevent you from merging your material into the other draft. I should point out, however, that none of this guarantees the draft will be accepted. WP:NALBUMS talks about notability of albums. I'm not an expert in that area, so I won't venture an opinion on whether this album meets the guideline. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-33

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

Recent changes

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools. Feedback on the discussion page is appreciated. [1]
• Due to the absence of volunteer maintenance of Cologne Blue skin, the link to activate it will be hidden. The skin will still work, but editors using it are encouraged to switch to another skin. [2]

Changes later this week

• Due to Wikimania, there is no deployment this week. [3]

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The "Wikidata item" link will be moved from "Tools" to "In other projects" section on all Wikimedia projects, starting on August 21. Full announcement, Phabricator task.

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

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing citations

Good day you have removed my citation of Mikko phylogeny archive on the Elopiformes page, I have no problem with that as it has been stated 'Mikko phylogeny archive' is not an authoritative or credible source. What I have a problem with is your lack of thoroughness and carelessness because you did remove two other peer reviewed, authoritative and credible sources in that deletion. Those citations were Fishes of the World a book and Family-group names of fossil fishes a paper. This was done not only the Elopiformes page but numerous other pages where I cited those publications. Can you please clarify and or suggest a permanent fix for removing those two other citations but leaving the edits to which they are based on. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Videsh, I see what happened. Those entries were removed as part of a semi-automated cleanup which was run as part of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. Unfortunately, it looks like I wasn't as careful as I should have been, and removed too much. What should have happened was to just unlink "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive", without removing the whole entry. I've gone ahead and fixed the problem at Elopiformes. If you see any others, please feel free to restore them, or let me know the page titles, and I'll fix them myself. My apologies for the error. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith, thanks very much for understanding. But it was a lot of pages I cited Mikko Haaramo, and your semi-automatic cleanup did deletions to some but not all those cited pages. So it is gonna take a lot of time manually to go through those pages individually to check. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC) the×

Let me work on this a bit. I think I see a way to fix this without having to look at each one manually. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've made a little progress. It looks like this is the set of pages I potentially broke. At least that should narrow down what we need to verify. Take a look at the list and tell me if this looks correct. If so, then I'll start working on a good way to fix things. Again, my apologies for the breakage. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Videsh Ramsahai: the easy cases will be when this is still the last edit to the page. In those cases, I'll just be able to revert my edit. If there's been additional edits since then, it'll require some manual work, but leave that to me, just take a look at the list and tell me if you think I've found the right pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Turkmenidae diff
2. Analectis diff
3. Poduromorpha diff
4. Symphypleona diff
5. Entomobryoidea diff
6. Jeholodentidae diff
7. Coniopterygidae diff
8. Dilaridae diff
9. Nevrorthidae diff
10. Ichthyodectidae diff
11. Cooyoo diff
12. Dinichthyloidea diff
13. Coccosteina diff
14. Brachythoraci diff
15. Palaeonisciformes diff
16. Edestus diff
17. Ninjemys diff
18. Aglaspidida diff
19. Ptyctodontida diff
20. Corydalidae diff
21. Titanichthys diff
22. Fishfly diff
23. Trionychia diff
24. Procolophonomorpha diff
25. Meiolania diff
26. Procolophonia diff
27. Trematosauria diff
28. Trematosauroidea diff
29. Bothriolepis diff
30. Docodonta diff
31. Nepomorpha diff
32. Arthrodira diff
33. Lepidaspis diff
34. Snakefly diff
35. Megaloptera diff
36. Chrysopidae diff
37. Coelacanthidae diff
38. Beardfish diff
39. Diapsid diff
40. Arowana diff
41. Elopiformes diff
42. Hiodontiformes diff
43. Opisthocomidae diff
44. Semionotiformes diff
45. Amiiformes diff
46. Pangolin diff
47. Esociformes diff
48. Percopsiformes diff
49. Palaeanodonta diff
50. Sicyophorus diff
51. Thoracopteridae diff
52. Peltopleuridae diff
53. Peltopleuriformes diff
54. Ctenothrissiformes diff
55. Crossognathiformes diff
56. Tarrasiiformes diff
57. Ptycholepiformes diff
58. Pholidopleuriformes diff
59. Perleidiformes diff
60. Saurichthyiformes diff
61. Atractosteus diff
62. Metasuchia diff
63. Capitosauria diff
64. Brachyopomorpha diff
65. Archaeopriapulida diff
66. Ancalagon (animal) diff
67. Ascalaphinae diff
68. Pholidosauridae diff
69. Mastodonsauroidea diff
70. Neelipleona diff
71. Piveteauia diff
72. Whiteia diff
73. Pachycormiformes diff

RoySmith, this looks about right, as you said there are some older ones I think. I will start to change some of them. But to clarify, am I removing the brackets from "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" so as not to link to that wikipage, or am I removing the "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" citation altogether.Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to say what the right thing is. For sure, you want to remove the brackets from Mikko's Phylogeny Archive, to keep it from being a redlink. Beyond that, you're the subject matter expert, so it's really up to your best judgement. If leaving the citation in still makes sense without the link, then by all means, leave it in. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dorothy Olsen

Hello! Your submission of Dorothy Olsen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

about Draft:The Kentucky Housewife

Sorry I didn't see this sooner - I don't do this very often or log in often - I'm responding to these comments copy/pasted below. . . . (I'm new at this and probably am answering this the wrong way - please excuse). I originally wrote one entry on Lettice Bryan but a rewiewer said that two entries were probably needed. So I created the 2nd entry on The Kentucky Housewife. Please publish one or the other or both because this cookbook is a significant contribution by a woman. Women are often overlooked in history because their contributions are political history.-- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: My guidelines for author vs. book for an author of a single book: 1.The only reason for two articles is if the author is well-known for other than the book, and the book is also quite important and might well be known independently. (This is most likely to be the case for people writing on current affairs; it will not be the case when the book isa memoir or autobiography)) 2.For an author who has published a single significant book and is unlikely to publish more (usually but not always because of no longer being alive) , I think the article should be on the book. More people are likely to be aware of it. A(a cookbookl like this is a good example--the primary interest is because people are innerested in cookbooks) 3.For a living author who will probably publish more if the book is a success (and if it isn't there probably shouldn't be a WP article) 4.The reasons for not having 2 articles is that the contents would mainly duplicate, and whichever the reader is interested in, they will be best served by having the information together. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: @DGG and Jimfbleak: I've cleared what looks like the remaining copyright violations. This is probably ready to go back into mainspace, but see also my comments at Draft:The Kentucky Housewife regarding whether we need one or two articles. Would appreciate your opinions on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Iluvwipdia: Hi, and thanks for your note. I've moved it to my talk page, which is where questions like this should go. I feel your frustration about conflicting reviews. That is unfortunately, a part of wikipedia; we're all moving in the same general direction, but different editors have somewhat different ideas of exactly how things should go. Looking at what DGG and Jimfbleak have written, and my own opinion, I think what you need to do at this point is twofold. 1) Go over Draft:The Kentucky Housewife and eliminate the copyright violations. There are some things where editors have room to disagree (i.e. whether to have one or two articles to cover this topic). Copyright violations, however, are what we call a bright line rule; this needs to get fixed before the article can go into mainspace. 2) Merge the material from Draft:Lettice Bryan into Draft:The Kentucky Housewife, and then submit the later for review. I'm watching that page, so I'll see the review request and act on it quickly. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay - I think I fixed everything. I've clicked the "resubmit" button but not sure if anything is happening. Thanks for your help and clarifications. Iluvwipdia (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll respond on the draft itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I give up. I think the content of the article is important, and I don't mind trying another re-write, but I can't figure out the complicated wikipedia editorial system in the limited free time I have to actually do it. A frankly, in academic texts, what you describe would not present a copyright issue since the material is clearly cited. When I go to the draft page, the text has disappeared and I don't have hours to read all the various instructions on various sites to figure out how to re-do it. I'll have to just stick to my paying job. Iluvwipdia (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Aboug Draft:Reiki Symbols

Hi Roysmith, thank you for your comments on my new article. I am aware that there is an article called 'Reiki', it talks about what it is and its background specifically, so I still think my article is different since I talk about the symbols of Reiki which are a different topic and also really important that is why I did not want to blend it with the Reiki article. I am going to check the URL you told me, but can I still make it a new article? I worked really hard on it and I would still like to make it a new article since that is how I think it should be, please let me know asap.

Thank you in advance. JCAGH (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:Content forking. Also, as you read Reiki, you'll notice that state up front that it is a WP:FRINGE topic, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Your article presents this as if it's valid medicine. That's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-34

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

Tech News

• There will be no Tech News issue next week. The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 2 September 2019.

Problems

• Some abuse filters stopped working because of a code change. Only variables for the current action will work. Variables defined inside a branch may not work outside of that branch. You can read more to see how to fix the filters.
• Only six accounts can be created from one IP address per day. Between 12 August and August 15 this was two accounts per day. This was because of a security issue. It is now six accounts per day again. [4]

Changes later this week

• Only a limited number of accounts can be created from one IP address. An IP address can be whitelisted so that it can create as many accounts as needed. This is useful at events where many new persons learn to edit. IP addresses that are whitelisted for this reason will also not show CAPTCHAs when you create accounts. This will happen on Wednesday. [5]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 August. It will be on all wikis from 22 August (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 21 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• There is an RFC about creating a new global user group with the right to edit abuse filters. This will be used to fix broken filters and make sure all filters will still work when software changes happen. You can read more and comment.
• Special:Contributions/newbies will no longer be working. This is because of performance reasons. It showed edits by new accounts. You can see this in the recent changes feed instead. [6]

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

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Outfoxedkc/sandbox (Chesley Brown International)

I am new to Wikipedia, so perhaps this is the wrong vehicle to use. However, I recently submitted an article about a company I have been researching (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Outfoxedkc/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1) who were active nationally during the OKC and Olympic Park bombings between 1995-96. My article was deleted, due to "advertising". I have reviewed the the description of "advertising" on the Wikipedia description, and I do not believe this article goes against the spirit of the rules. I was hoping you could explain further the reason for deletion so that my submissions may be improved in the future.

Additionally I would like to understand why the article was DELETED instead of sent back for edits? It seems I don't have a great handle on the process, but in general, when articles are submitted to other platforms, an editor reviews and requests edits, rather than deleting the whole thing all together.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outfoxedkc (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the article, I'm assuming this is a paid commission to write an article about the company. I see this is your first contribution to wikipedia. May I suggest that you read WP:YFA to understand what we're about, WP:COI to learn about our conflict of interest policies, and WP:NCORP to understand what we're looking for in the way of coverage for companies. You might also want to look at WP:Requested articles to get some ideas for topics to write about. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing those links. Thank you for clarifying as well -- I can understand that perception. I am not, however, a representative of the company, nor do I perform any work on their behalf. I am a security and technology researcher in the midwest. Its been frustrating that I have to use 10+ year old archive links as reference whenever I write about these guys. During this last round of work I noticed that many of the links I've used historically are getting so old they're no longer being indexed online, which was my motivation for posting this. I have read through the links your shared, and aside from removing a minor source, I'm still not sure what specifically needs to be fixed here. Outfoxedkc (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what a security and technology researcher does, but I assume you run some sort of consulting service, where you advise your clients on which security firms to hire. Your interest in having a wikipedia article about this company seems to be to provide a ready reference for you to use as part of that consulting business. That's a conflict of interest. I'm hesitant to answer your question about "what specifically needs to be fixed", because there is no good answer. Anything specific that I point out might lead you to believe that if you just fixed those things, the article would become acceptable, and that's not the case. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Was the reason for deletion because of an assumed Conflict of Interest? I do not sell any services, I am a student. I don't even work in the security industry -- my research is part of my thesis. It seems striking that one of the largest security companies in North America isn't listed anywhere on Wikipedia. I thought the whole mission of Wikipedia was to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." If the only reason for deleting the article is because its been assumed i have a conflict of interest, how may I remediate that perception? If that's not the issue, then I'd be happy to make any updates to the article that are necessary. Please understand, I am new to the platform and I'm doing the best I can to jump through the right hoops, but a little guidance would be most appreciated.

Outfoxedkc (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem determined to argue about this, so I've undeleted the page and listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 20 where other editors and admins can review my action. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if I've come across as argumentative, that is not my intention. I'm just trying to understand where I went wrong on this and how to fix it. Thank you for pushing that out to other admins. I have made updates to the article in order to make it more neutral, as you requested. I'm just not sure how to fix the perceived conflict of interest issue you've raised. Outfoxedkc (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Catahoula bulldog close

Hi, Roy - the consensus for the AfD is quite clear - there is no legitimate breed as a Catahoula bulldog - it is fictitious and should be redirected to the actual recognized breed Catahoula Leopard dog. The few arguments for KEEP were based on anecdotal information cited to unreliable sources, not factual verifiable information cited to RS. How on earth did you determine that AfD to be "no consensus"??

Tomi Thomas AfD

Hi, RoySmith, I disagree with you closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomi Thomas. Indeed there were flurry of "Keeps" but with zero or faulty policy reason to keep. I've thoroughly explained why the article is based on unreliable sources completely and no one reliably disputed that. I am baffled with your closure as just "Keep" and I hope, you'll reread it and decide to either delete or reopen it. Thanks – Ammarpad (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The biggest point of contention seemed to be whether Pulse Nigeria was a WP:RS. You obviously feel they are not. Other editors felt they are. Judging the reliability of sources is part of what editors at AfD are supposed to do. Given the number of people who felt this should be kept, it would take really strong arguments to convince me otherwise, and I'm just not seeing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)