User talk:RoySmith

Seasons greetings

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Tech News: 2019-04

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

• Some people did not get last week's issue of Tech News. This was because of a problem with MassMessage. If you did not get last week's issue, you can read it on Meta. [1]

Recent changes

• The content translation tool can now use version 2 as the default version for users who turned on the beta feature. For example it adds the tracking category Pages with unreviewed translations to translations that might have used machine translations without fixing the problems. This is so others can find them. You can find this category in Special:TrackingCategories on Wikipedias.
• https://mediawiki2latex-large.wmflabs.org can now convert collects of up to 800 pages to PDF, EPUB or ODT. Previously this was 200 pages.

Problems

• When a template was edited with the visual editor, it would sometimes put all information on one line. This makes it difficult to read for editors who use the wikitext editor. It also makes it more difficult to see what happened in a diff. This problem affected edits made between 8 and 17 January and is now fixed. [2]
• MassMessage is used to post a message to many pages. It has not been working reliably. Some messages have not been posted to everyone. [3][4]
• Because of a database problem that had to be fixed immediately you could not edit most wikis for a couple of minutes on 17 January (UTC). This has now been fixed. [5]

Changes later this week

• You will be able to use template styles in the Module namespace. [6]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 January. It will be on all wikis from 24 January (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 23 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

20:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD

Greetings Roy: Just a heads up that while you closed this AfD discussion, the article itself was not deleted. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've fixed that manually. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ultra fast response! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Another Closed AFD but article is still live.

Hello RoySmith,

I recently bumped into an AFD Discussion here which you closed as Delete but the article is still live. Happy Sunday to you. PlotHelpful (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just fixed that. Sometimes the automation fails to work properly, that seems to be the case here. The page had a large number of revisions. The first time I tried to delete it manually, it failed due to a database timeout. That's probably what happened during the automated AfD close as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Clara_Belle_Baker

Thanks for the feedback, Roy. I am working on adding detail (as a part of the research I'm doing on Clara Belle Baker). She was author of more than 70 books for children in addition to being a leading voice in public education for over 50 years. I'm a bit new to wikepedia - and in hindsight I should have sandboxed the article until it was more developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InquirEDlearn (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@InquirEDlearn: I think what you're doing is fine. Getting stuff out for review early is a reasonable way to go. If somebody wrote 70 books, it's likely that they're a good subject for a wikipedia article (what we call "notable"). You might also want to take a look at WP:WikiProject Women in Red; what you're working on will fit into that effort. Good luck working on this, and please feel free to ask me for assistance if you find yourself having difficulty. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Baker Demonstration School

Thanks for the advice about Clara Belle Baker. I'm also working on an update of the Baker Demonstration School site. When I'm finished I'd love to submit it to you for review. But before I do that...

I'd like to remove/report the references to Donald Rumsfeld going to Baker Demonstration School. What's the process for that? I deleted it - which was probably not the step to take - and saw that you put it back in.

It should be deleted for several reasons. First, the reference site that is used claimed that it gathered information from Mr. Rumsfeld memoir "Known and Unknown." No where in that memoir does it refer to Baker Demonstration School. Also, the site is riddled with other errors about Mr. Rumsfeld's life. For example, while the site claims that Mr. Rumsfeld was born in Evanston, the direct evidence from his memoir indicates otherwise:

"My father had spent most of his youth and first years of marriage in modest apartments in the city and was eager to move his family to a house in the suburbs. When I was six, we moved to nearby Evanston, home of Northwestern University, and then finally to a house in Winnetka, a small suburb to the north."

I have to conclude that http://www.litlovers.com/reading-guides/13-fiction/8453-know-and-unknown-rumsfeld?start=1 is an unreliable source.

I am also planning on deleting/reporting the reference to Charlton Heston. The site used as a reference for that: (https://jwcdaily.com/sheridanroadmagazine/2014/01/30/article-1391104271004/) clearly is using Wikipedia itself as a source. Furthermore, you can see on the Charlton Heston page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston#Early_years there is debate over whether he ever lived in Evanston, and no confirmable evidence that he attended Baker Demonstration.

Should I delete those references and mentions - or report them?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InquirEDlearn (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't restore the Rumsfeld reference, I just reformatted some things and found a better reference for some. In any case, the rule is that anybody can edit any article. If you've got a legitimate reason to make a change, just go ahead an make it. The process can be somewhat chaotic, but amazingly enough, it usually ends up working out just fine. Another possibility, if you believe a source doesn't meet our reliability requirements, might be to tag the citation with Template:Better source or Template:Dubious, or any of the myriad other tags we've got available in Template:Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates. But, fixing it yourself is better than just tagging it and leaving it to somebody else to fix.

One more thing I should add. Looking at possible sources with a critical eye (as you are indeed doing) is a valuable and essential skill. Many potential sources are of dubious value at best, and should be ignored. Blogs and other user generated content are legion. Some sources, if you look carefully, are just parroting what other sources (sometimes wikipedia article) say. Having the perseverance to find the best, most reliable, sources, is important. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-05

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

• The Wikimedia servers use HHVM to run the PHP code. They are going to use PHP7 and stop using HHVM. You can test PHP7 with a new beta feature. That way you can help find and report problems.

Problems

• When someone moves a page to a name that already exists that page that had the name the article is moved to is deleted. For a couple of months this didn't always work. Some users saw an error message instead. This has now been fixed. [7]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 30 January at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Crystal mush

Dear RoySmith, Thank you for reviewing this Crystal Mush page (Crystal_mush). You have assessed it as C-class. May you please indicate what are its major weaknesses and strengths leading to this grade? This page was part of a teaching exercise and your opinion is very useful.

Thank you.

Julien Leuthold

Hi Julien, and thanks for your note. The way the AfC system works, when you accept an article, you get prompted to assign it a quality rating. The ratings are described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme. To be honest, I think the quality grading system is a little silly, in that there's way too many possible grades, with too many subtle distinctions between them. As as result, I don't put much effort into the evaluation. At AfC, I'm really just looking to see if it passes the bar to get promoted to mainspace. Your article clearly did. In fact, it's a very nice piece of work and you are to be commended for your efforts. There's so much drek that comes through AfD, seeing something this good really makes my day. One criticism I could make is that you rely more on WP:PRIMARY sources than on WP:SECONDARY sources. This is common with science articles, and is really just a issue of scientific papers being written in a different style from encyclopedia articles. I suggest you ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology; the folks there will be more familiar with the subject matter than I am, and will be able to provide more specific advice. They'll also be better qualified to re-assess the article than I am. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ might also be helpful. Again, I think this is a really nice piece of work. Thank you for your contribution to the encyclopedia, and I hope you stay around to write more articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedbacks. You suggestions are very useful and I will consider them for the next similar exercise. I am very happy you enjoyed the article and hope you could understand most of its content.Julien.leuthold (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Babbitt Fairchild

Hello RoySmith. Could you or one.of your talk page followers please move this deleted article to draft space or direct me to the appropriate venue to make such a request? There are articles on his father, two of his sons, and his family. I'd like to see.what was there before I at least redirect the subject title. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Now at Draft:Arthur Babbitt Fairchild. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

David Nemer

Dear RoySmith- I hope this note finds you well. We've been discussing the deletion review for the article on David Nemer, and last week, I have created a draft based on the portuguese article on him and have also added other sources. I'm not sure what would the next step be. I was hoping to have it restored so other people could help me improve it. The article in portuguese has grown quite a bit- and maybe these people would contribute to the english article. David Nemer's wikiquote articles (EN and PT) are also there. Thanks a bunch in advance! --Wikisharktank (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is to just let the DRV discussion proceed to its conclusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you, RoySmith. I just got a notification that the DRV discussion is closed, and the conclusion was to let the article to be drafted and, then, have an editor moving it to the main space whenever he/she finds it ready. I have prepared the draft a while ago, and some people went there and also contributed to the article. Could you please take a look at it and check if you deem it ready? Thanks! --Wikisharktank (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You should submit it for review. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. In a nutshell, just add, {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. If you're using the visual editor, you can do this with Insert/Template, then type "submit" in the "Add a template" box. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-06

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

Changes later this week

• It was easy to untick a box by accident in Special:Preferences. This will now be fixed. [8]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 February. It will be on all wikis from 7 February (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 6 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Netcoins

Why delete the draft article for Netcoins? It's a notable publicly traded company, world first in the Bitcoin industry, widely cited in media and online. Nearly $100M in revenue. Others less notable are included in Wikipedia.

Cryptocurrency spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Or do you just have a bias / discrimination against Bitcoin? Perhaps you're not the right person to make that assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to bring this to WP:DRV if you like. FYI, Bkissin. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I've now posted there for review. If you need more clarification on the company/industry, I'd be happy to explain. It's definitely not Cryptocurrency spam, quick Google news search will confirm this. If you're willing to un-delete, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Beharia

Sir RoySmith,

  Beharia---- My article is an simple article. I have corrected as far as possible .If you can spare your valuable time I will be very grateful to you    Thanking you.  Uploadsou14 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Roy, in case you are wondering, this was about the message you posted at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_67#Draft:Souvik_Mandal. Both the articles Beharia and Bhandirban had been improved and are now in mainspace. Thanks for bringing this on WT:INDIA, regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-07

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

• You can use the ambox CSS class to show page issues to mobile readers. When you use ambox there are classes you can use.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 February. It will be on all wikis from 14 February (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 13 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The American Economist

Dear RoySmith, you were the one to review the draft I created for the Journal The American Economist. Upon reviewing you decided that there were copyrighted parts of it and deleted the entire page. I plan to recreate the document and would just like further explanation as to what was copyrighted so I do not make the same mistake again. I believe you thought the table describing the Articles in the Journal written by Nobel Laureates was copyrighted but there was a reference for it. Am I missing some other piece that you believe deserved the action of deleting the entire page instead of allowing me to make edits before publication? Thank you. written 2/14/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see you've gone ahead and recreated this, with exactly the same copyright problem. Honoring copyright is one of the strongest and most inflexible rules we have on wikipedia, and I've thus had to delete this again. Please take a look at WP:CV and understand our copyright policy before attempting to recreate this again. In a nutshell, you can't copy somebody else's work. Even if you reference it, you still can't copy it. That's what you've done here. You copied entire paragraphs from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-american-economist/journal202419. That material is copyrighted (see the "© 2019 SAGE Publications" at the bottom of the page). That means we cannot have it on our servers, in any form, even with proper attribution. You can use the information, but you can't use the text, either literally, or as a close paraphrase. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I'm guessing you may have some connection with the journal or with Omicron Delta Epsilon. If so, please take a look at WP:COI to understand our conflict of interest rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nathan Lee (February 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nathan Lee and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nathan Lee, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for your feedback. I searched for some reviews of the subject, and found the review from the Washington Post to be critical, as it stated "What was less discernible in Lee’s playing Sunday afternoon was the nascent sense of an original voice, that quality that lifts a performance from a simulacrum of the music to an authentic utterance, born of necessity." I would appreciate if you could give some pointers on how to approve the article before resubmission, if you think it is worth working on. For example, should I change "mixed" to "positive ?"

Berlecalm (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Berlecalm

Hmmm, I vaguely remember seeing this question before. Did I neglect to answer it somewhere else? If so, I apologize. Music is not my field of expertise, so I may have missed some of the nuances of the review. Maybe you're OK the way it is, but another possibility would be to say something like, "the NYT and SunBreak were enthusiastic (quotes here). The Washington Post, on the other hand, was more critical (quote here)". Just a suggestion. You could go ahead and resubmit it and see what another reviewer thinks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for the advice. I appreciate your help.

Berlecalm (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

hello nice to meet you

My name is ImmortalWizard. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Same here. I see your decision as wise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_rights_of_pregnant_inmates Bandwidth is cheap to free so it is not necessary to delete but to merge/redirect is better. Some in Wikipedia foam at the mouth and want to destroy and delete a lot of things. I am more tolerant. As long as it is not inflammatory, BLP violating, or clearly rubbish, merge is fine. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-08

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

• When you thank someone on the mobile web you will now have two seconds to cancel the thank. This is in case you clicked on the thank button by accident. [9]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 February. It will be on all wikis from 21 February (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 20 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• There is a proposal to add a red link to mobile search results if there is no page with that name. This is how it works on desktop. You can leave feedback. [10]

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

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Louis Sola

You closed a Deletion Review at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_January_30#Louis_Sola as Endorsed. It isn't entirely clear to me whether you are saying that the deletion decision was correct and a new article should not be evaluated, or whether you are saying that the deletion decision was correct at the time but a new article may be evaluated. If the former, I will decline the current draft again. If the latter, I will review the draft again, and will probably accept it. What was the significance of the Endorse? (We had never been questioning whether the original deletion was correct, but whether it had changed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)