User talk:RoySmith/Archive 17

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

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[1], site of computer science research for several decades and where the Geospace Mapping System was developed[2] 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)

OK, thanks for researching this. The redirect sounds like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

DRAFT DOTTO RANGIMOTO

Hellow RoySmith

I read your helping instructions on my draft and I made some changes so as to meet what you said on your comments. Below is article link of my draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dotto_Rangimoto

Am waiting further instructions if there is still some mistakes.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chomachoma (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave it to somebody else to review. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 23 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)

@RoySmith: After consulting a number of Souzouki biographies on the web, it appears that they all more or less follow the same pattern. This one http://www.deneulin.fr/agence/artistes/fond-agence/ruytchi-souzouki/souzouki-ruytchi/biographie.html cites the foreword of a Dimitri Salmon book on the subject as its source. It is likely that all available biographies are inspired either by the book or by one another. The book is not available online. The draft appears to be a merger of the most relevant facts of several online biographies, not a translation of a single one.89.3.14.100 (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this to other reviewers. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

About your arguments for rejection of the draft: Deneulin is not “the agency that represents the subject” ‘(who died in 1985). In the “Agency Artists” http://www.deneulin.fr/index.html page, Souzouki is listed under “Fonds de l'agence”, i.e. “Agency resources”, meaning artworks that belong to the agency but are not to be sold. The owner states “During the last few years, I have been trying to gather drawings, paintings and writings by Souzouki”. This person appears to be a Souzouki collector, not a seller nor a representative. Hence, the Deneulin references are possibly secondary. These references could be left away but this would strongly cripple the documentation of the subject. Since the specific argument for rejection focuses exclusively on sources, provided the “Atamanes” reference is replaced by suitable secondary references, the draft might appear resubmittable ? 89.3.14.100 (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'm going to let other people review it. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Answer: "Earlier", i.e., on 23, you said you would "leave this to other reviewers". Nevertheless, on 24, you rejected the draft, invoquing issues (sources) that were different from those you raised initially (copyright issues). Now you want (again) to "let other people review it". Some further explanations appear necessary from your side before any resubmission is attempted with forseenables chances of success. 89.3.14.100 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll need to find better sources before this gets accepted, no matter who reviews it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Answer: Obviously, it appears difficult to obtain clear answers from you about your own reviewing process. After your initial criticism of copyright issues, I initially explained in details the intricacies of writing a Souzouki biography given the interdependence of the available sources. Your answer was not to address my statements but to say that you would « leave this to other reviewers ». In contradiction with this, you not only rejected the draft but also invoqued new reasons, namely validity of sources, on partially unfounded grounds (you had understood that the main source is the representative of the artist, whereas it is not). I then explained why this main source could be considered valid. Again without addressing my point, you first wrote again that you would leave this to « other people », then again that « better sources » are needed. In all, you never address clearly neither the issues raised by your criticisms on the draft, nor those raised by our reviewing process. Given the high standards requested from Wikipedia writers, similar high standards should be given to the review processes. This is obviously not happening here.89.3.14.100 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for my earlier curt reviews. Let me try to do a better job. I see several core problems.
  1. You don't have enough sources. You list two sources, lesatamanes and deneulin. We're looking for multiple sources. While we don't have a hard number for what constitutes multiple, two is probably not enough. And, if as you say, most of the available sources are all interdependent, then that further reduces the scope of the source collection. If two sources base their reviews on a common underlying source, then you really only have the single source.
  2. The sources are WP:PRIMARY, in that they're directly involved with the subject. One is a dealer selling the artist's works. The other one, which I originally thought was an agent, you say is a collector of the artist's work. Neither of those are WP:RS because they are not independent of the subject. They both have a direct interest in promoting the artist.
  3. You mention a book which is likely to be the underlying source of some other derived sources you've used, but say the book is not available on-line. Sources do not need to be on-line. It's certainly more convenient (both for the author and the reviewers) if they are, but that's not a requirement. Find the book in a library and cite it the way you would traditionally cite a reference; title, author, publisher, page number. If there's an ISBN, include that. Then, anybody who wants to verify the citation can likewise find the book in a library and read it.
Finally, regarding your question, provided the “Atamanes” reference is replaced by suitable secondary references, the draft might appear resubmittable, the answer is yes, once you find better sources, you should resubmit this. But, please understand that resubmitting it is no guarantee it will be accepted. You still need to make sure the sources meet WP:RS, and the subject in general meets WP:ARTIST. From what I've seen so far, I'm not optimistic that's going to be possible, but researching better sources is the way to start. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page

Heres the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:USA1491#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Why_We_Need_The_State_Of_Jefferson_Book_%28June_30%29

Sir their is no article about the book it has just been published. Cant we have a wikipedia article about it? I read the book and those are some of the things it talks about. Also the source with the LA times is the evidence of some of the things the author wrote about. If you want me to a can put an amazon link were the book is and the name of it heres the link https://www.amazon.com/dp/1983280518?ref_=pe_870760_150889320 Sir I hope you change your mind about putting the page up for the book. Please let me hear your thoughts Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by USA1491 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the Amazon listing, this book is self-published. Please see WP:NBOOK for our guidelines on books and why this isn't a candidate for an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This High School Has Closets

Hi Roy, My understanding is that you nominated this wikipage for speedy deletion and then proceeded to delete it. I am following the guidelines set by Deletion Review Board. My understanding if you review to reverse your action that I can appeal to them. Correct me if I'm wrong if you are not the person who nominated then deleted this page. I wanted to address certain assertations that you made that were incorrect.

  1. 1This page was originally on the list of requested wikipages and not initiated by the publisher or publicist as you stated.
  2. 2 The page came about under a project by the LGBT editors group who "selected" to create this page to bring "historical and significant" issues of value to LGBT viewers. It was reviewed by them as significant enough to warrant creating a page.
  3. 3 This page was also supported by Canadian editors of interest to Canadian "historical and significant" issues to Canadian culture
  4. 4 You seemed to have ignore the statements by jytdog which questions your statement that the article wasn't written in a neutral tone.

So, I kindly ask that you reconsider decision about removing this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tews~enwiki (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This High School Has Closets was not a speedy deletion. It was discussed for a week, as normal for these discussions. I closed the discussion and as a result of that closure, deleted the article. That discussion didn't draw a huge number of participants, but there were two people, in addition to the nominator, arguing for deletion, with not a single argument from anybody to keep, so this was a pretty straight-forward decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I would've also voted delete and closed as delete.--v/r - TP 03:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cloud service provider

Dear Roy Smith, I' ve read your reason for declining the article about ‘Cloud service provider’, I am here to ask how can I retrieve the article for making the changes(deleting the images protected by copyright and by changing the introduction text or updating the references if this is enough). Thanks

Carrillo difulvio griesi (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm unable to retrieve it for you. Large portions of the text were copied directly from the Microsoft Azure web site. We cannot have copyright violations on Wikimedia Foundation servers. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for 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.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect piping

Regarding your closing statement, I think SJ was saying that someone who delete a redirect should replace all uses of that redirect. That is not SOP to say the least, but it was aimed at me, not you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:8th Wall

Hi Roy, thanks so much for taking the time to review my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:8th_Wall

I have a couple of follow up questions so that I can make sure that I'm editing it appropriately. Most of the 3rd party sources I used are independent news articles (Forbes, VentureBeat, etc.); I had read that these were considered reliable sources since they are not press releases or blogs, but verified news coverage. Can you kindly provide insight into what other kinds of sources would improve the article? Any other feedback that you have for me would be so helpful.

Thanks in advance!

Jenniferleed (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Jenniferleed

The main issue I see with those sources is that the are routine coverage of a funding announcement. The are not independent because they are responding to a press release. The NextReality, VentureBeat, and Forbes pieces were all published in a three day span and do nothing other than report that the company closed a funding round. Crunchbase is just a directory listing. WP:NCORP explains what we're looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

John Iadarola

Per the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination) as Iadarola's career has grown, I have added additional sources covering his primary hosting of "True North" and "The Damage Report" series with additional non TYT sources. This is in addition to his daily hosting duties on the TYT main show. I have reactivated the article to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any objection, but suggest you ping the other participants in the AfD so they're aware. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 11

Regarding Deletion Review specified in the Subject.

I got the image from the Facebook page of the person. Below is the link. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=137559676823012&set=pb.100017069402551.-2207520000.1531352067.&type=3&theater

Since it was listed as a cover photo, I thought it would make a good profile picture. As I said, I'm new to Wikipedia. If this image violates any copyright, I shall remove the picture. ScienMaster (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't just grab a picture from somewhere, upload it, and claim it is yours. You clicked on the option in the upload wizard that says, "This file is my own work." But, if you got the image from Facebook, it's not your own work. So, yes, please delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall delete the image once the page has been restored. Until then I don't have access to the page. If that's the only major issue, please restore the page. I shall ensure that the page abides by Wikipedia standards.ScienMaster (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Heinrich von Schroeter

There's nothing here that makes me think this person meets WP:NBIO. There's a few facts about what appears to be an unremakable civil servant. What did this person do that makes him stand out from the crowd? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roy,
The article in question was a translation of the German article of the same name.
Regarding notability: "Any biography: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Heinrich von Schroeter was elevated to German nobility by Emperor Wilhelm II. as idicated by "as of 18. January 1901 von Schroeter" (Maybe I should elaborate in the "Life" section.)
Best wishes,
--JvSchroeter (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Each wiki has their own policies; just because de has an article doesn't mean en has to have it too. That being said, I suspect German readers would have caught the significance of the von, so adding an explanation to the English version would help. I'm guessing from your username that you're related to the subject? That's a conflict of interest and needs to be declared on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Have added COI and elaborated on title and its significance.--JvSchroeter (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roy,
Will you re-review the draft or what is the standard procedure here?JvSchroeter (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule. Some reviewers will do multiple passes. I tend to only review a draft once, and leave it to others to re-review. It's useful to get different points of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Malaysia at the 2018 Asian Games

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Malaysia at the 2018 Asian Games. 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. 219.79.126.116 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak

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

I think it would be best to leave it to somebody else to review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sonic film

Hi.

Heads up that someone has asked on WP:RM/TR for Draft:Sonic the Hedgehog (film) to be moved to Draft:Sonic (film). You have fully protected the corresponding main area page Sonic the Hedgehog (film) per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 28. It would be prudent to do something about this when the page is moved. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ankit Love

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankit Love. 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. MB190417 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted article Stev´nn Hall, may I ask for a copy, please ?

Deleted article Stev´nn Hall, may I ask for a copy, please ? It will serve as a future reference whenever and if a resubmission is attempted. Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Neuralia/Stev´nn Hall I'll leave it to you to clean up the templates. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing S. S. Baltimore and your kind words. -Teri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teri Garnet (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shark_Bait_(Band)

Hi Roy, its the only reference available as its my own bands information... I'm not sure what else we can use as a reference I've been prompted by our publisher to create a wiki page for ourselves so that our stores and streaming services can find and display correct information about our music etc. this information is true to fact as it is about ourselves. please offer constructive help in this matter. Regards, Deebo4T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deebo4T (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What you describe is advertising. This is not what wikipedia is intended for See WP:YFA#Things_to_avoid. If there are no sources other than your facebook page, then I can only conclude that we can't have a wikipedia page for your band and the draft should be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I Understand... I have since changed the reference to our own website. not meant at all for advertising purposes, more so fans can search and find out a little bit more about ourselves. I will be adding more to it over time, thus with more references when the time comes... I hope using our official website prevents it being declined again. Regards, Deebo4T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deebo4T (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, it's still exactly advertising. I have hate to be hard-nosed about this, but the goal of the wikipedia project is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free advertising space for everybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

please explain how this differs from any other wiki page written about a band... ie neck deep, the wonder years. if this in fact the case closed, then these pages should be under the same rules as the intention is exactly the same. regards, Deebo4T 

minus the references, the intention behind the page is clearly identical... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neck_Deep)
We have many pages about bands that we shouldn't have. That's not a justification for adding more. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

literally millions of articles that shouldn't have been published then :) i will remove everything, but to be clear... if the purpose of wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, how on earth is an article about how a band formed, or wrote their music not suitable... it helps musicians learn new processes, gain confidence to form bands of their own. its a extremely brief article currently, but when it would have been finished, i assure you, your opinion would be different... my original intention today was to make a start and save a draft, so that I can finish writing the story of how we formed and our writing processes etc which would, at the time, allow me to correctly reference the information as I add it. thanks for your help i guess. Deebo4T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deebo4T (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

personally, having these articles and being able to read about how my favourite musicians got into what they do is the reason im in the career I am in... its a very very sad day if these articles are nto actually 'allowed'. regards, Deebo4T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deebo4T (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please re-review

Could you please re-review the draft article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AN/APS-4 I believe I answered every criticism, and you were the only one to decline.

-Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This looks a lot better, thanks. Please take a look at MOS:PUNCTFOOT and go back and clean up the citation formatting to match the recommended style. This is mostly a matter of making sure the references all come after the punctuation, and there's no extra white space. Other than that mechanical cleanup, I think we're good to go. Thanks for working on this; it's a nice article! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the complement. I needed that. I fixed the punctuation as per MOS:PUNCTFOOT. Can you please approve the article and move it from draft to mainline? Much thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
You need to click the big blue "Resubmit" button. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Request on 13:50:37, 25 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 1Tomcat2


I'm writing about this page that you have rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Philip_Bro_Ludvigsen

I am a Danish architect, designer and writer who has written an extensive book on the subject of Danish design (translated into English in 2008): https://www.amazon.com/Dansk-Design-Thomas-Dickson/dp/1741963176 https://books.google.dk/books/about/Dansk_Design.html?id=Bj2hLK2868AC&redir_esc=y It has been described as a reference book on Danish design by Paola Antonelli - chief research curator at Museum of Modern Art, NYC I have also written a Ph.D on the subject of post war Danish design (unfortunately only available in Danish)

I wanted with my first article for Wikipedia, on Philip Bro Ludvigsen, to broaden the scope of modern Danish design on this media. Several others of his kind and generation are mentioned on Wiki, but often the more hyped ones, he (and others) are just as worthy of an article. I looked through some of them to see what the format was and basically do it in the same way, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Campbell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilie_Manz Frankly I find my article just as good and neutral as these two examples. I have referred to my own research, two articles in nation-wide Danish newspapers, and the oldest Danish design magazine (Bo Bedre) + various brand web pages. There are normally no 'more academic' sources on young designers.

All the best Thomas Dickson


1Tomcat2 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

One of the frustrating things about Wikipedia is that we have a lot of bad examples. If you're looking around at other articles for guidance, that unfortunately means you often find articles to use for guidance which aren't the best. The main thing about writing a biography (or any wikipedia article) is to understand that we are a WP:TERTIARY source. You use a book you wrote yourself as a source. That's what we call Original Research. You need to be looking for WP:SECONDARY sources which talk about the subject. Please see WP:ANYBIO for guidance on what we're looking for. You say there's a lack of sources on young designers. That's probably true, but the answer to that is not that we should write poorly sourced articles, but that we shouldn't be writing those articles at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Johannes Cornelis van Rooy

Hi RoySmith

Thanks for your comment

I did not write the Wikipedia article on the University it self. I would have done more to show that the university is a major academic institution. The university still exist today although its name has changed to (North West University) and it has now three campuses of which the Potchefstroom Campus (by far the biggest) is situated where the university was that was called Potchefstroom University. It has huge student numbers (about 60000). Its one of only two universities in South Africa that present a degree in Pharmacy. Its degrees are recognized world wide and every year research articles from the university are published and presented world wide. Ex-South African presidents has graduated here. Another side line comment, about the Broederbond. Although controversial this organization as a secret organization played an significant part in the Government prior to South Africa becoming a Democratic state. van Rooy was the Chairman.

Regards

Barry Ne (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave further review to somebody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The Powers of the Earth

Help. This article was closed as a result of an AfD in April, but it has won an award since then. However, it's not a major award, so I sent it back to AfD… but something happened in the process and the AfD is all screw-if. I looked to you, since you closed the earlier AfD. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure what happened, but yeah, it's broken. Maybe a bug in Wikipedia:Page Curation? I'll try to clean it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. Onel5969 TT me 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shatra (game)

Thank you for you comment on my page about shatra. I know that i have used too little sources, but english sources about the topic are rarely found. However, there is a russian page about the game which lists two additional sources. Sadly i'm unable to translate russian, so i'm unable to add them as additional sources. Maybe an editor fluent in russian could check them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverseerUriel (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Reverend Samuel Phillips

Hi RoySmith,

Thank you for your feedback on Draft:Reverend Samuel Phillips. It makes sense to rename the article and put "Samuel Phillips" in front of "Reverend". I'm wondering if since Reverend is more of a title than an occupation (i.e. Picasso (artist)), would it be realistic to propose changing the title to "Samuel Phillips, Reverend"? Also, given that there is another Rev. Samuel Phillips (his grandfather of Rowley, MA), should there be anything in the title that would distinguish this Rev. Phillips from the other (i.e. location or year of birth)?

We'll see what others have to say on the matter. Let me know what you think.

Thanks again,

--Nannochloropsis (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), but I still don't see a clear answer to what the correct title should be. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at the article you linked. My personal consensus is that "Reverend" should not be included in the title of the article. The naming convention article states "Honorifics and other titles...are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (i.e. Mother Teresa)." Although he is referred to as Reverend Samuel Phillips in nearly all sources, I don't think he falls under the category Mother Teresa does. Elizabeth II for example is commonly referred to as "Queen Elizabeth II" but her Wikipedia page title is simply "Elizabeth II." That's just my personal opinion. I'm open to other suggestions. --Nannochloropsis (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I went with Samuel Phillips (reverend), because Samuel Phillips is already taken as a disambiguation page. If somebody wants to quibble about the exact title, it's easy to move later. Thanks for writing this; it's a nice article about a historical topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you --Nannochloropsis (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Request on 00:22:21, 3 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by AshleyTRyan


Hi there- I'm hoping you can assist with the changes you requested to the Embark Veterinary page I tried to submit. Given the extensive independent press coverage of Embark across several years and outlets, I'm surprised the article keeps getting rejected. Literally dozens of articles specifically about Embark, including its societal impacts and controversies, have been written in popular mainstream news sources as well as science-centric sources. Per your request, here are four different sources covering Embark in different ways:

1. This article specifically talks in depth about Embark and its potential impact on society and why it is a notable company: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/15/11225446/embark-dog-dna-startup-disease-risk-ancestry-boyko-cornell

2. This article talks about a finding from Embark specifically and how the finding and Embark bring up social and scientific implications now and for the future: https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/dog-dna-provided-by-owners-has-been-used-for-a-new-kind-of-genomics-study.html

3. This article talks, from an established, independent, scientific source about how Embark is uniquely positioned to have a long-term impact on dog and human health using pet genetics: https://www.genomeweb.com/applied-markets/consumer-startup-embark-veterinary-debut-canine-dna-test

4. This article talks about an ongoing controversy in Embark's testing which has been written about in several sources this week, including Nature, NPR, and the Washington Post, and specifically mentions Embark: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/07/28/632723832/questions-rise-about-shortcomings-of-dna-tests-for-dogs

Please review these sources and let me know if you feel like even these do not satisfy the notability guidelines and, if not, why, so I'm able to fix. Thank you so much for your help.

AshleyTRyan (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

First, a question. Do you have any connection to the subject company?
I'm not sure what you mean by, the article keeps getting rejected. As far as I know, it's been rejected once. In any case, looking at your sources:
  1. The Verge. This is a reasonable source that talks about the company in depth.
  2. Slate. This is mostly about genetic testing in general, and only makes a passing mention of Embark.
  3. GenomeWeb. This is behind a paywall, but from what I can see of it, it's routine coverage of a press release.
  4. NPR, which I shouldn't even bother reading since four is more than three, but, like the Slate article, this is mostly about genetic testing, and only mentions Embark in passing.
In summary, I don't see sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The editor is a friend of mine and came to me a bit frustrated by it. Just so you know, the GenomeWeb article is not coverage of a press release and the Slate article is about what Embark is doing and did specifically with their customer's data and how what Embark is doing could impact society. Embark's the only company relevant to the discussion, but it's true the article focuses on the impact to society and less on talking about Embark. To help the editor out, here are some more sources like the Verge one:
  1. https://www.americaninno.com/austin/dog-dna-startup-embark-moved-from-austin-to-boston-and-raised-4-5m/
  2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/dog-dna-testing-gets-its-day
  3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2017/08/03/a-startup-embark-wants-to-be-a-23andme-for-dogs
There are many more too, so if you're looking for a specific type of coverage, I'm sure the editor can provide them. Seems like the key question here is if the company satisfies WP:NCORP, so appreciate your evaluating that and providing helpful comments!
Please see WP:COI to understand your disclosure obligation. Also note, our mission is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide publicity for companies. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup, definitely aligned. I'll let the editor follow COI disclosure on her own, as the policy is to allow editors to do it on their own. That said, I believe the criteria for company notability are not meant to be subjective based on the editor, but either the company has reached notability or not, per the criteria. Can you provide a response as to the above three articles if you believe those plus the Verge article fit the guidelines, which seems to be a separate question from who edits the page and how? Thanks!
I have already reviewed four sources above and came to the conclusion that WP:NCORP is not met. I am unwilling to review any additional sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. It appears that there is a criterion that's currently not listed on WP:NCORP but is being applied. I want to make sure to correctly understand that criterion, though, so I can help out by suggesting the appropriate edit to WP:NCORP. Is the reason not to review more sources that a company that otherwise satisfies WP:NCORP but whose first editor highlights sources a senior editor doesn't believe fit the criteria is ineligible for further consideration of sources, or because if a senior editor believes that a company's page is edited by someone with a conflict but that otherwise satisfies WP:NCORP is ineligible for consideration?
The reason not to review more sources is because I'm a volunteer and I get to decide how I spend my time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is just to let you know I listed the dispute on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements so you won't have to read the additional articles. I completely agree that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, so hopefully someone with more time can make sure we're doing that as best as possible. If you do feel like there is any content on the page that is unduly self-promotional or breaks any other guidelines, please do let me know. As I've said on the talk page, I am an employee of Embark, but the idea of creating an article and the content were not my idea nor encouraged by me. I just jumped in to help when told about this dispute, as I do also firmly believe the criteria for listing have been met and thus it is making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to include it (and Wikipedia must believe so as well if those are their guidelines).

About your Third Opinion| request @AshleyTRyan and DogDaysOfSummer1990: First, let me note that the comments left at Talk:Embark Veterinary have been moved to Draft talk:Embark Veterinary and Talk:Embark Veterinary has been nominated for deletion as a subpage without a primary page. Second, the request for a third opinion has been declined because disagreements between draft authors and reviewers aren't really disputes. The conclusions and recommendations by the reviewer are merely recommendations and it is up to the author to choose to accept or reject them. If they believe the article is ready for publication, they have the option of rejecting the reviewer's advice and moving it themselves into mainspace and seeing whether or not it is changed or nominated for deletion. If they're not certain, and the authors need additional help with editing, then the Wikipedia Teahouse is a possible source for advice, but they're usually well-advised to take heed to the advice given by the draft reviewers. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Review requested

I am waiting for you to review this page Draft:Kuwait Integrated Petroleum Industries Company since I tried my best to eliminate all possible issues highlighted by you. Please check and suggest changes otherwise approve thank you, Here's the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kuwait_Integrated_Petroleum_Industries_Company

Please be patient. Somebody else will come along and review it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 18:34:33, 4 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Micah hainline


I feel like I could use some help with the sourcing. I understand needing to source facts, but I'm not sure what's missing on that front. The original person who put it in draft (which, yes, it belonged there, I hadn't really filled out the article yet) mentioned more sources needed, but I thought the images front and back that I added covered that pretty well. The other parts seemed pretty well sourced by just the Jefferson Barracks website. I'll probably put in a FOIA request for the documents related to it's installation, but I didn't think that kind of thing was what you were looking for. That takes forever anyway.

Anything you can find that fits the bill?

Micah Hainline (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to look at WP:RS for some general background on what makes a good source. The other thing you should read is WP:GNG, which talks about determining if something is notable. We use the term notable in a specific way; in wikipedia parlance, it means, people have been writing about it, and more specifically, it has been getting coverage by independent secondary sources. For example, the Veterans Affairs website you reference, while a good source for basic facts, isn't a good source for establishing whether this is notable, because they're not an independent source. They're the VA writing about something that they own. If you could find an article in a book or major newspaper that talked about the monument, that would be a much better source for establishing that this meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize the specific hangup. If I'm understanding correctly it could fit in the Jefferson Barracks article fine, but not necessarily fit in it's own page. That's fine with me, I just wanted to get the extra info that was missing from here into it, since Confederate memorials have been a huge point of contention here and when I found it here in the List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America there wasn't enough info for me to connect the dots to it and actually find out what it said. I've spent way more time than I had intended on it, though it was kinda fun as well. Would someone with more experience mind merging the content and references into the Jefferson Barracks page if it belongs better there? I'm about tapped out and don't want to screw things up anymore.

We can revisit notoriety after a proper mob is raised to tear it down. :) Micah Hainline (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and merge some of what you've got now into Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery. Don't be discouraged. I think what you've discovered is that writing an article is easy, but writing a good article is quite a bit more work :-) I hope you'll continue to contribute to the project. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting adjustment to AfD closure.

I think this AfD is better closed as "No Consensus", just like that AfD.
The difference between a "Keep" and "No Consensus" closure may seem purely academic, but it can make a difference in future to come.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I generally don't worry much about the difference between keep and NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, but then please do update it to "No Consensus". -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I looked at it again. I think I made the right call. Why is this trivial distinction so important to you? -- RoySmith (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Because of people incorrectly using past AfD results, attempting to hammer down speedy closures.
Why is this so important to you?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, whatever. I'm sorry you don't agree, but I think I made the right close. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is this so important to you? (a "trivial distinction" in your own words.) -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. I can see you're not going to let this go. My role when closing a discussion is to dispassionately evaluate the weight of the arguments on both sides. In this case, I decided the weight of argument was to keep. Now, somebody who doesn't like that result comes along and urges me to change that. I'm willing to take another look and re-evaluate my decision. Whenever I do these re-evaluations, I try to also be dispassionate, and not fall into the trap of trying to satisfy the person who asked, simply to make them happy so they'll go away. I did that, and came to the conclusion that my original close was correct. That's really all I can do. I will admit that I didn't put as much effort into this re-examination as if it were a delete/keep thing, because, quite frankly, the consequences just don't justify the effort to split hairs about a close keep/NC decision. If you truly think my close was in error, and it's important enough to make a fuss about, deletion review would be the correct venue to argue your case. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
You're still not really answering the question, and I think DRV is over-the-top because it's only a matter of changing the word "keep" to "no consensus" (no consensus defaults to keep, i.e. no real action needed).
So, given that Sandstein is already reasonably familiar with this (ref. his good closure of the "sibling" AfD:List of breakfast drinks, 2'nd nom.), then, much simpler than DRV:
@Sandstein: What do you think about the simple word change of Keep to No Consensus for AfD:List of breakfast foods ?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, not commenting on this because it might end up at DRV where I often close or participate in discussions. Sandstein 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Child suicides

The discussion around this gets me close to concluding this isn't a worthwhile project. Sure it's a big project. Sure we need process. But is it so hard to see we need more than process? KJP1 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF, my friend. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Not possible, I'm very much afraid. KJP1 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 21:23:52, 2 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by RoseRalph



RoseRalph (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roy, This is with regards to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_Levine. The references I mentioned on this page are both interviews about the subject matter in significant detail and full-fledged stories talking about him. The references are not just in English language, is that a problem? Because, though in other languages these newspapers and magazines are big newspapers in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium etc. Please guide me if my understanding is wrong. Can I look for more references, fix the issues and resubmit again? RoseRalph (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you can certainly resubmit this after finding better references. That's the whole idea of the review process; submit a draft, get feedback, make improvements based on the feedback, and resubmit. But, before you do resubmit, I would suggest you read WP:RS to learn what makes a good reference, and WP:BIO to learn what we're looking for in a biography. As for references in non-English sources, that's perfectly fine. For the english-language wikipedia, we require that articles be written in english, but the sources don't have to be. Using non-english sources will make it more difficult to review, but that's not a reason to forbid their use. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Roy. I will find more sources, read the guidelines and submit again. RoseRalph (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, glad I could help. I'll probably not do the review on the resubmit. I think it's better to get different people reviewing, so you get the benefit of different points of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

I had plans to put the kid behind a camera Page into a redirect thanks for taking care of that problem A.R.M. 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(AfC) Requesting review for a new page Draft:Moideen Koya K. K.

This is in correspondence with the draft I had created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moideen_Koya_K._K. I have made required changes based on your comments and other reviewers as well. Please review the page and let me know of any more changes required. Please move the page to the Articles section if everything is fine. I am new to Wikipedia and the interface is a tad confusing to me. So kindly bear with my ignorance. Thank you Ubhasrk (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be patient. Some other reviewer will get to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever

ok so what type of sources for confirmation do you need? I have fights on youtube? and a lot of your info on kickboxing on certain fighters is incorrect I have access to the biggest kickboxing fights archive in the world which is verified by Steve Armstrong your site is a great but not at all 100% accurate im sorry to say let me know what I need to know to move forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy "Guapo" Lopez (talk • contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Yo

Throw this somewhere in my user space if you don't care, and I'll look at it later this year and see what the situation is. GMGtalk 23:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to userfication, but if you're not going to do anything with it for six months, may I suggest that we leave it where it is and you can always come back and ask in six months if new coverage appears. This way, we leave it in a predictable place if somebody else wants to work on it in the meanwhile. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Umm...I'm not really seeing any volunteers. I'm the only long-term editor in the discussion having a case of the "maybes". I'm not emotionally attached to it, but I am fond of Knoxville and the whole WiR thing. GMGtalk 00:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not going anywhere. When you're ready to work on it, it'll still be there. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=Oh0TZWkRdbQC&q=%22IBM+New+York+Scientific+Center%22&dq=%22IBM+New+York+Scientific+Center%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO-YL43YPbAhUQFnwKHV89ALY4ChDoAQhHMAg See p.77
  2. ^ Computer Mapping: Issue 2 of Census use study report. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1971. p. 14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_17&oldid=858859336"