User talk:RoySmith/Archive 6

Talk:Logan Abbott

Hello! You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Abbott as "redirect to MyRatePlan.com". I was tidying up and merging, and I couldn't find the usual talk page notification of the AfD and closure, either on at Talk:Logan Abbott or at Talk:MyRatePlan.com. Was this an oversight, or is there usually not a talk page record when the result is redirect? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm going with oversight. I've gone ahead and patched it up with the OldAfD template which was missing. I assume that is the result you were seeking? Thanks for catching the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Some people at the AfD were concerned about the possibility that someone might try to re-expand the redirect page into a full article. So I thought the history of redirection via AfD should be documented. Now it is! --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mighty Don't Kneel

I don't think your reasoning behind the "no consensus" ruling on this AfD is correct. Of all the comments, not all mentioned the condition of the article and one commented that English coverage was absent - which does in fact go to notability. This would indicate that a rescue of the article is impossible. I think the clean up template has been there for months and there has been no reaction. Suggest you re-visit this decision now and ignore the references to the condition of the article. Thanks. 58.165.7.185 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I looked at it again. This was a close call, but I'm satisfied with the result. At some point in the future, if the references to prove notability haven't appeared, it can always come back to AfD for another discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But they haven't appeared for months prior to this nomination and I don't think they are going to show up in the future unless something happens and we can't CBALL here. I'm sorry, but I don't think you've got this right as you've focused on the article condition as indicated in your decision. 58.165.7.185 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish decision. Clearly not notable. Did you even look at the sources? Arguments against deletion were weak and proven so in comments. There was no substantive objection to the arguments put supporting deletion. Is there a minimum time limit to re-submitting this for deletion? That is, can I re-nominate it straight away or do I have to wait a certain period of time? 203.17.215.22 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your additional note and feedback :-) The applicable policy on re-submitting this can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, specifically, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again. I'm afraid I cannot offer any guidance on what a reasonable amount of time would be. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Derek McGee

Hi, RoySmith. I was looking over old AfDs, and I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek McGee as Merge. I was a bit surprised, as there was a clear consensus to delete, and I see no relevant information to merge into Hacker Time. Was it your intention to suggest that a character list be created in the main article? Honestly, I still don't think there's any worthwhile information to merge, and my web searches didn't turn up any indication that this is a main character. At best, this looks like a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggested Merge, because it was mentioned by one of the participants in the AfD. I'm not familiar with the subject matter. If there really is nothing worth merging, then I guess a plain redirect would be appropriate. If you like, I can update the AfD closure to indicate that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on the close. I don't mean to be a bother, but I was initially a bit confused. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a bother. I'm glad you asked, and in the future, I will try and provide greater clarity the first time. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Binliang

Given there was little challenge of the evidence that League 1 is fully professional (only debate about it referenced previous AFD which seemed to also say League 1 was fully professional, the evidence I provided was not discussed, and the decision to delete was subject to future determination of professionality), and not one shred of evidence was provided showing that the leagues were not fully professional, then I really don't understand the basis of your decision. If it really is delete, can you expand your discussion and provide an explanation of your decision. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This one was not complicated. I saw 5 people (including the proposer) putting forth cogent deletion arguments based on policy, and only one person (you) arguing to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what numbers have to do with it; consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The issue comes down to whether Chinese League 1 is fully professional. While evidence was provided that suggests League 1 is professional, no evidence was provided to the contrary. Evidence it was professional was arbitrarily dismissed, and the counter evidence provided was a pointer to a "consensus" that did not actually exist. However, if you've made up your mind, please explain the basis for your decision in the closing statement, which will assist in focussing the deletion review. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasoning. I understand that you do not agree, but in this case, I think the consensus was clear. If you believe my close was in error and deletion review is appropriate (WP:DRVPURPOSE), that is, of course, your right. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment "I have already explained my reasoning". Your closing statement consisted of the words "The result was delete.". There is no explanation there. Please provide one. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No response? You say that you've already explained your reasoning. Where was this explanation that I can't find? Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is above, I saw 5 people (including the proposer) putting forth cogent deletion arguments based on policy, and only one person (you) arguing to keep. I am sorry the decision did not go the way you wanted, but in my mind, this was about as clear a consensus as it gets. My job when closing an AfD is not to evaluate the article. That's the job of the editors who participated in the discussion. Your fellow editors were the people you needed to sway with your arguments, and you apparently failed to do that. My job is to summarize the discussion, determine if the participants in the discussion came to a consensus, and if so, carry it out. If you believe my actions here were in error, please take this to deletion review; continuing the discussion here seems pointless -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD on Marques Brownlee

I'm unclear as to how you determined "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marques Brownlee. Per WP:NOTAVOTE, the discussion should have centered on the applicable notability rules. I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion if I thought the article had merit. Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marques_Brownlee_(2nd_nomination). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This just closed 7 days ago, it should be sent to deletion review instead of repeating another deletion discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

About Work Stress Claims

Hello! I wanted to create wiki Page for Work Stress Claims but it is showing already deleted and if wanna create then contact with you. Can you please help me regarding this. KateSteele (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

One of your AfD closes has appeared at deletion review and I see nobody has told you.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Pogroms - AfD

Hi Roy, thanks for closing the AfD at list of events named Pogrom earlier. Personally I don't agree with the merge decision, but I am willing to support it in order to move forward - as they say, the best compromise is when all parties are the least unhappy, and this may be it.

Having said that, the nom at the AfD has begun attacking the merged content at Pogrom, adding numerous tags and removing the list criteria, among others.

Please could you keep an eye on Pogrom for a few days to make sure this doesn't spiral downhill too fast? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll watch it. I realize nobody actually suggested merge in the entire bizarre debate brawl, but, as you say, it seemed like the best compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The nom and his buddy are using a "no consensus" argument - ie ignoring its previous existence as a standalone article. Such an argument undermines the whole concept of the merge. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Constitution Party of Alabama

I've nominated this for deletion review. Closing an AFD is not an invitation to ignore the entire discussion and many thought-out responses and substitute your own opinion, and there is no possible reading of the discussion that would suggest a consensus for anything like your desired solution. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What authority do YOU have to close the AfD discussion and decide, all by yourself, on merging the articles? I agree with The Drover's Wife that there was NO clear consensus. Many of the individual state pages have plenty of their own unique references that would be out of place on a merged page.Lexington62 (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

another view

An excellent, clear, well-reasoned close, and a model for what to do in similar situations. (some problem analogous to this tends to arise every month or so, and I will be used your arguments.) I don't even think you needed to say you were using IAR--you were deciding what was appropriate in a close: deciding on the basis of the informed comments, rather than vote counting. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate the vote of confidence! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Question for you

You were on the admin list so I have a question I hope you can help with. Recently, I have had users making up false claims about my account, and have been disruptive in article. I have actually gotten random Reverts on article edits just because of this, and not because there was an ACTUAL reason to revert the article. Take for example, a recent article I edited was reverted, and the edit summary was basically "I accuse you of being a troll" or whatever. So then they just remove the content from the article. Currently, a user is spreading these lies further on his talk page and I believe this may become a much more frustrating issue if something is not done.

So I was wondering what my options are in regards to this? Do I talk to someone, fill out a form, you, etc? TheKingsTable (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Block TheKingsTable, because he is a sockpuppet of Jakandsig, a disruptive editor. IX|(C"<) 05:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't play this game. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RR Caeli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnitude (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Matěj

Thank you for closing this AfD. However, you seem to have missed the nine other articles under consideration in the same discussion. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done -- RoySmith (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roy, re: this closure, the relevant football season restarts tonight and I'm going to check to see if any of these players get starts, if they do will you have no prejudice to me restoring the articles and adding sources? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 07:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I only closed the AfD; my opinion about what happens in the future has no more weight than any other editor. That being said, the general rule is that it is OK to recreate a deleted article if the reasons it was deleted are no longer valid. Keep in mind that if somebody objects, you will need to supply policy-based arguments to support your action. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

List of film accents considered the worst

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film accents considered the worst

Regarding List of film accents considered the worst, I changed my vote to delete and pinged a few others just a couple of hours ago. (A couple of them followed suit based on my initial argument.) Could you wait to see if they would change their mind or not? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

First, they're not votes (if they were, the delete camp would have won, since they had greater numbers). Second, WP:Canvassing is a violation of Wikipedia policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Votes, arguments, same thing here. :) No, canvassing only applies to uninvolved editors. I can ping editors who were already involved with the AfD. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're joking, right? In other words, nothing is listcruft anymore. This is the problem with Wikipedia. The people who create these lists spend lots of time editing here and thus invest lots of time advocating for them. I edit sporadically and only started because I was coming across a lot of poor quality articles and this kind of garbage. How does one appeal this decision?--Atlantictire (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was one of the "keepers". For the record, and as I've now stated on the article talk page, I don't think Erik's new arguments support deletion. They certainly might support changing the focus of the article and retitling it, but those are editorial processes, not cause to delete a bunch of legitimate content. For my own part, I think the close was well-considered, and I hope we can leave this AfD behind, and move back to collaborative editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. The keep arguments were ludicrous. You would need to have some kind of statistical model for aggregating data to establish that an accent in a film is "considered the worst." Just because such and such critic who writes for the Chicago Tribune hated Apocalypse Now doesn't make it one of the "movies considered the worst."--Atlantictire (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for RoySmith to respond, but I'd like to put this up for a deletion review. Enough with these "keep" arguments that basically say "Wikipedia exists to give lonely people with a computer something to do." NO. IT. DOESN'T.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no one can stop you from filing for Delrev, but it's not the best use of anyone's time. The close was reasonable, but more to the point, Erik's suggestions on the article talk page have provided a constructive way to move forward to improve (and probably retitle) the article. A much better use of editorial energy. And, Atlantictire, calling the considered arguments of multiple editors "ludicrous" and denigrating them as "lonely people with a computer" is truly, truly, not the best way to go. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's get real. A lot of this "editorial energy" is gladly lavished on treating Wikipedia as a venue for time wasting and socializing. Maybe "multiple editors" deserve to have their efforts come under closer scrutiny. If someone wants to make a listcruf page to have an excuse to waste time on here it may seem harmless.. until links to their pages creep into pages with actual content.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of film accents considered the worst

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of film accents considered the worst. 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. Atlantictire (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (3rd nomination)

Notability can exist for any reason. It doesn't require career accomplishment. Being a young up and coming Kennedy with aspirations for politics, and other various things, can be notable. It's determined by the existence of sources, as described in WP:GNG. It is unclear why you ignored the sources (and Keep votes) and instead voiced a personal opinion about "lack of accomplishments" as reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not just for accomplished people. -- GreenC 17:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Do you doubt he meets WP:GNG? If you have a problem with the article giving what you consider too much coverage about something else, then discuss it on the talk page and edit it through normal methods. That's not a valid reason to delete an article. Ample coverage about him out there, and his activities. They have a video on Today that list the events he has been to, and list detailed facts about him. [1] Various other coverage of him has already been mentioned. Plenty out there. Dream Focus 00:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I see my mistake here was not just writing "Delete" and letting it go at that, because that's the consensus I saw from the arguments people put forth. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The people saying delete did not deny he got coverage to pass WP:GNG, only complained saying he wouldn't be getting it if not for his famous family? Consensus isn't a vote count nor just a glance over a few arguments. Kindly look at the sources provided, and whether or not they pass GNG or not. Dream Focus 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing with these epic multi-AfD cases is one has to start reviewing past discussions taking into account emerging consensus over time. Looking at AfD #2 for example: Coffee closed it delete, but after deletion review, he changed position saying "those sources (which I ruled out in my closing) do in fact establish notability outside of him being related to JFK." The core of it is that most of the Delete votes are premised on the essay WP:INHERIT ("only notable as a Kennedy"). While the essay is often viewed as a guideline, it is not because there is no consensus for that, and probably shouldn't trump the guidelines when there is debate over INHERITs application. -- GreenC 18:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Schlossberg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Schlossberg. 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. Dream Focus 19:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good call...

...this one. I was obviously the strongest advocate for deletion but consensus wasn't with me (or, more accurately, others believed it was created in good faith and deserved a chance). They're not wrong and it probably does so ignoring a "technical" failure to meet guidelines is sensible. Keep up the good work! Stalwart111 02:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to know my efforts are appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

concerning your user page deletion review essay

At User:RoySmith#Deletion_Review you say "I can't help thinking that if all the time and effort people put into arguing process could be redirected to collaboratively editing articles, we'd have this encyclopedia written by now." Well, if you followed the notability guidelines designed to prevent pointless arguments, and didn't go around deleting things you shouldn't, we wouldn't be having all the arguments to begin with. And having things you delete go to deletion review does not mean you are doing your job properly, but in fact quite the opposite. Dream Focus 06:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD closure

Roy, I must say I'm surprised you closed the "Hummingbird Heartbeat" discussion as keep. None of the "keep" voters were (correctly) following WP:NSONGS, as there is little information from reliable sources on the song available that isn't from album reviews. WP:NSONGS states that there needs to be in-depth information from multiple reliable sources (not counting album reviews) to have its own article. There was definitely more weight for redirect. @Gongshow: made a solid in-depth case for why it fails notability. With this in mind, why was it declared as keep? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I know it's not a vote, but I count 7 keep, 4 redirect/delete (I am discounting the comments struck out by @DoRD: as anonymous sockpuppetry). The keep arguments were reasonable and policy-based. This one really wasn't hard. I am sorry this did not go the way you wanted, but the time to argue was during the AfD, and your arguments there apparently failed to convince your fellow editors to come over to your point of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense since weight/strength of arguments is more important than number of votes. Believe me, I did make backed-up arguments during the debate, including an excerpt from WP:NSONGS. @Lankiveil:, @Adabow:, and Gongshow all also cited WP:NSONGS for reasons to delete or redirect. The "keep" decision really should be reassessed, as WP:NSONGS can't just be ignored. Also, the "keep" votes were not as well supported as the "delete/redirect" ones. Plus, one of the "keep" voters didn't even provide a reason to keep the article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would have liked if at least one of the keep !voters (or, indeed, the closing admin) could have taken a second to address my or User:Lankiveil's concerns. That said, while I believe the keep arguments to be in conflict with WP:NSONGS, I don't think the end result would be overturned at deletion review anyway. At this point, the better course of action IMO is to clarify the guideline itself through the talkpage.  Gong show 18:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Gongshow, but are you saying we should define WP:NSONGS and gain consensus through the talk page rather than another AfD, and that if deleted it would not be overturned? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest changing NSONGS to make the wording clearer so it's more easily enforceable going forward. I've started a topic here.  Gong show 19:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian Revolution of 2013

Greetings,
I would like to thank you for your recommendations but can you please re-explain to me the ways you suggested to improve the article? I apologize but i somehow failed to understand this part well enough: "..find the most significant watershed events, and use those events as bright-line demarcations between articles. Then write a series of articles, culling material from 2012–13 Egyptian protests, Egyptian Revolution of 2013, etc"
If you noticed, the 2012–13 Egyptian protests is now an exclusively timeline article and there is also a proposal of moving it to Timeline of the presidency of Mohamed Morsi. This article on the other hand, has a different structure because there are sections like "International reactions", "Solidarity protests", "Characteristics" and perhaps many other things to come that are not present in the protests article. If you can suggest ways to make this article a better one, i would be really grateful. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I wish I had a good answer for you. I know very little about the topic at hand. My suggestion was based simply at looking at the several articles, observing that they appeared to overlap in various ways, and suggesting a possible way to organizing things better. History tends to be chronological, so I thought perhaps this would be a good way to organize this material. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question - "Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show" incubated

Hi, thanks for your assessment of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 Air Show. Now that the article is in draftspace, is it ok to work on it to address the concerns raised by the editors that supported deletion? I think that the editor who created the article is relatively new and may need some help thru this process. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the idea; people should work collaboratively on drafts while they are in the draft namespace. Eventually, if the article meets standards (and there's no guarantee of that), it can get moved back into the main article space. You can find a description of the draft process at WP:DRAFT. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 3 page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you have time to look at what is happening with the conspiracy theory article and if you see fit issue a 24-hour block and warning?

Hi Admin. Roy Smith. I noticed you closed the Jennifer Hornyak AfD [2], one I participated in; and I appreciated your level-headed approach on that. So when I was looking for an admin. to take a look at what is happening at Conspiracy theory, I thought of you.

There's a new, nearly single-purpose user, Csp0316, who has become active there. This article has been created over several years with source citations to the heavy hitters on the subject of CT. With the exception of two minor contributions, my main involvement was reorganizing existing info and adding a lot of subheadings.

Csp0316 has expressed his displeasure with the thesis of the article and has focused his anger on me, the consistent voice for the stable version of it. He is determined to re-do it according to his own liking. If you read the last few paragraphs of talk, you'll get the flavor of where he is headed with this.

The reason I think this needs admin. action, a 24-hour block for starters or at least as strongly worded warning, is that (1) now Csp0316 has blanked a fairly significant chunk of text sourced to one of the main authors in the field. (2) A second concern is that editor Csp0316 is adding material that is not in any universe properly sourced. My concern is that if this m.o. persists--blanking the sourced info and adding his own contributions based on OR or extremely shaky sourcing--in pretty short order there's going to be a new, different article replacing the stable version. (S.o. other than I would need to restore the blanked material as well.)

This article is a magnet for conspiracy theorists of many stripes, obviously. Contrary to new editor Csp0316's assertion, I'm not a CT basher. I just think RS and weight rules s/b followed, and I see them being jettisoned here. IMO the sources establish that CT is a seasoned term of art in English-speaking cultures, but Csp0316 isn't buying that.

Thanks for your time. Paavo273 (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Paavo273:, thanks for your note. I took a quick look at the article, and @Csp0316:'s contribution history. On the surface, I don't see anything that really throws up any red flags. It looks to me like this new editor discussed the proposed changes to the articles he or she has modified for a significant amount of time before going ahead and implementing them. It seems to me, this is more of a content dispute than anything else, which doesn't require third-party admin assistance to resolve. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Could You Close a Photo Deletion Discussion ?

It seems that you are an Admin who sometimes closes discussions on Deletion Requests. Could you please look at this involved discussion concerning a photo deletion request, and determine if we can now close that discussion (link of discussion is below)? It has been about 7 days since User:Stefan2's request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_March_1#Terrific_Street

Do we have enough of a consensus to close that discussion and remove the Delete Tags from those 2 photos and change their status to Keep? If so, would you be willing to close that discussion and fix the tags?James Carroll (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. I looked at the discussion. I'm afraid I'm not an expert on copyright issues, and it look like that's a critical part of this discussion. So, I'm going to decline on this one and leave it for somebody who is better versed in copyrights as they apply to media. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahima Dramé

On your user page you state, "I can't help thinking that if all the time and effort people put into arguing process could be redirected to collaboratively editing articles, we'd have this encyclopedia written by now."  I saw this AfD earlier today and saw that there was a consensus position that addressed all of the viewpoints.  And I stated in my !vote, "there is no benefit to having the article locked up in deletespace."  Yet an hour later you have put this article in deletespace.  Was I incorrect in saying that there is no benefit to having the article in deletespace?  Returning to your user page comment, if you want people to collaboratively edit articles without going through process, doesn't draftspace do just that?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've move the last revision to Draft:Ibrahima_Dramé. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, I will review the draft.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Communism

I disagree with the way you closed the AfD for Jews and Communism as "no consensus". The final vote was 22 to delete, 1 to merge/delete, 1 to merge, and 1 to redirect (total 25 votes) against 14 to keep.[3] Furthermore your observattion that no one would claim the topic is not notable is wrong. As I argued in the AfD, while the role of Jewish people in various Communist parties have been written about, no comprehensive book or article about the connection between Jews and Communism has ever been written (and I provided a source for that comment.) I would appreciate therefore if you would review your decision. TFD (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi TFD, thanks for your note. Yes, I'm aware of the numbers. Please note that this is not a vote (see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Consensus). I carefully read all of the arguments and came to the conclusion that there was no clear consensus here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jews and Communism

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jews and Communism. 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. TFD (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Miroslav Keresteš

Hi RoySmith. Can you undelete please article about Slovak footballer Miroslav Keresteš, who is currently playing for Czech side FC Zbrojovka Brno. He made his professional debut for FC Zbrojovka Brno on 24 February 2014 against AC Sparta Prague, [4]. Thank you. BR. IQual (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miroslav Keresteš. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Héctor Omar Mejía

You closed the debate with the comments that The key issue here seems to be that WP:FPL does not list the league Mejía played . However, I don't understand that, because no one argued the league was fully pro. The argument to keep was he met WP:GNG because of extensive media coverage over the last decade, such as [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. There was little challenge to these sources. And there are may more, such as [10]. Which isn't surprising given he's played for 15 years on one of the top teams in Central America, in a country where Football is the top sport. The issue about WP:FPL was simply a note that one can't claim that there's consensus about the team not being professional, because it's not mentioned (and has never been discussed) at WP:FPL. Nfitz (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to quote the sources here; I read them when I closed the AfD (as best as I could, via Google's robo-translate). I am sorry this did not go your way, but you were the only person arguing for keep and your arguments did not persuade. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why then did you closing statement not address this, but instead addressed an issue that no one raised? Nfitz (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding. I just noticed. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do userfy

You said you would be happy to userfy Ethiopian line of succession, would you mind doing it for me? Thanks very much, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Moved to Draft:Line of succession to the former Ethiopian throne. Feel free to work on there. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in Andhra Pradesh

Per your comment at the AfD discussion, I have copy edited the article's Hyderabad section so that it does not contain verbatim or close paraphrasing of text at [11]. It's unclear if information at the external link was copied from Wikipedia or vice-versa, but to be on the safe side, I copy edited the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Double AfD closure!

Hi RoySmith: Check this out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic Cauldron (essay). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That's special. I close these things with a script, so I'm going to guess it registered two mouse clicks instead of one and just went off the deep end. I'll try to fix that up. Thanks for pointing it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

An interesting script error that occurred there! Thanks for fixing the matter. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Typography

Hey Roy. Thanks for sharing the screenshot. Can I ask what operating system you're using? We just updated English Wikipedia with a local fix, which we think should solve some issues for users on Windows 7 and XP in particular. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Mac OSX 10.7.5. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

RESTful API Modeling Language

See also: User:Dsimic/RESTful API Modeling Language

I am not seeing a consensus for Delete. Would you consider adding your opinion to the discussion and reopening? Also, if you don't think it's independently notably, why not merge/ redirect to Representational state transfer (REST) where it is discussed? Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RESTful API Modeling Language with some more comments. I hope that addresses your concerns. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the REST article already covers the RESTful API subject to some extent. It seems that you have cast a super-vote instead of expressing your opinion in the discussion. You comments show that you have made an assessment of sources and determined that coverage is not substantial. I and others in the discussion came to a different conclusion. I don't think your closure is appropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what objective you are seeking. You suggested I should have closed it as merge into Representational state transfer. I updated my closing comments to make it clear that anybody could do that if they wanted. What else are you looking for? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggested you cast a supervote and asserted your opinion based on your reading of the sources. I stated that I didn't see a consensus for delete. I suggested you convert your statement into a comment in the discussion and leave it for someone else to close. I also suggested that a merge would be reasonable since content covering the subject is already noted in a "parent" article. In your additional closing comment you said you would make the deleted article available upon request, which is certainly helpful, but that does not enable me to carryout a merger. Doing so would also violate editing policies on crediting editor work. I would be fine with a protected redirect (which would allow access to the material). A redirect would be helpful anyway. But I don't think deletion is appropriate or a proper reading of the discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I am looking for a proper close based on policy that provides readers with the information they may be looking for. This is helpful in this instance and in other cases where this discussion might provide a basis for a better outcome in future. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just went back and analyzed the AfD again. I know it looks, on the surface, like everybody is saying Keep, but most of those keeps were from WP:SPAs, and I discounted them entirely. When you throw out all that sockpuppetry, all that's really left on the keep side is two comments, from you and Dsimic (talk · contribs). I am sorry this didn't go the way you wanted, but as I look at the arguments presented by the (non-sock) people who participated, I still believe I made the right decision here. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, it's not that everything is lost by deleting an article – as we know, nothing is actually erased and there's always take two. Anyway, it looked a bit suspicious with all those "keep it!" from WP:SPAs; it's pretty much Ok to "fight" for an article, but the efforts should be channeled toward making the article better or finding more sources, not toward bringing more artificial "keep it" votes.

Any chances, please, for emailing me a copy of the article's last version? I'll go through it again once I have more time and try to find more references, reevaluate its notability etc. I have the email feature enabled for my account. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the most recent version to User:Dsimic/RESTful_API_Modeling_Language -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll have another look at it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Roy, it looks like that you don't have any idea what is this article about, when proposing it for removal. But this is ok, keep you very-very useful activity. Wikipedia needs you! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.232.2 (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: closedrv.js

Hey, just giving you a heads up that I left you a reply over at User talk:Lifebaka#closedrv.js. It's been the better part of a month, so I wasn't sure you'd still be checking for answers there. lifebaka++ 17:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article in my userspace

Hey. Can I get that that deleted article Making People Pay:The Economic Sociology of Taxation on my userspace, so that I can further work on it! Uncletomwood (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Article is now User:Uncletomwood/Making_People_Pay:_The_Economic_Sociology_of_Taxation -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please restore talk page for Little Kids Rock

Please restore talk page for Little Kids Rock per DRV. Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Spectronic 20 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Precision, Quantitative analysis, Analog and Bandwidth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Few more requests

Can you restore the talk page for Alberget 4A per DRV and also both the talk and history for this DRV Ellie Ga. Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitalOcean

Hello, I understand you dispute my assertion of consensus regarding the article DigitalOcean. Per WP:CON, I don't see where my assertion was misguided. Even the original speedy deleter had indicated I was being overly cautious in resubmitting the article, and then visited it to contribute. Personally, I want to move on and seeing this topic returning to my inbox over and over is having a frustrating chilling effect on me as an editor. Can you specify what you need to see, beyond WP:CON, to accept that consensus has been reached? Kind regards, Niels Olson (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Niels. My only issue was that there was a discussion going on to determine consensus, and generally the right thing to do is to wait for that discussion to be over before declaring how it ended. I understand that at times our process can seem overly-bureaucratic. Sometimes things move slower than I would like myself! Just to make sure you understand where we are in the process, I've moved the discussion of this article to AfD (Articles for Deletion). That's the right forum for people to debate the merits of an article. That discussion (which you are welcome to take part in) will (nominally) run for a week. At the end of that time, some other administrator will come along and summarize the discussion and declare an outcome. If you have any other questions, please ask, I'll be happy to explain. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Hi there, I am curious why you decided to close this AfD after 3 days with the note "clear consensus". There seems to be a divide among the responses instead of the clear consensus that you closed with. Additionally, AfD should be allowed to run for seven days, Wikipedia:NotEarly. Please either re-open the discussion or provide a rationale for your closing decision and decision to close early. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It looks to me like the AfD was started on April 18th, which is 8 days ago, so I think we're fine there. As for the consensus, I see 6 people arguing for keep. I saw three people making cogent arguments to delete (and one inappropriate comment, which I discounted). The three people arguing for deletion did indeed make cogent, policy-based arguments, but were still a numerically small enough minority that I felt declaring a keep consensus was the correct thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct I am not sure why I had the date wrong. AfD isn't about votes, the policy based agreements should carry more weight than "keep votes". Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know we're not just counting votes. But, as far as policy-based arguments go, that favored the keep side as well. The overall topic is clearly notable, and this article very well sourced. Yes, several people did make reasonable arguments to delete based on WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK, but those are judgement calls and the weight of the arguments went the other way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayaan Chawla - Article

I saw you have Endorse the article "Ayaan Chawla" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_11, I want to know exactly what you have done Endorse means: declare one's public approval or support of. So have approved this article? Because I see JohnCD had deleted that article. Kindly reply. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@PradeepChowdhury: It means that the consensus endorsed the earlier deletion of the article, and he was the admin who determined that consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Predeep. It's just as Chris said. The deletion review process is that the merits of the deletion are discussed for a week, and then somebody else (who was not involved previously) comes along and summarizes the debate. That was my role here. My "endorse" statement means, "The consensus of the people who debated this is to endorse the original deletion". -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@RoySmith:, please help, JohnCD, have deleted Ayaan Chawla article, I don't know why but he is going against my article but OK then he have added my account in Sockpuppet investigation I didn't understand, if you even see in recent deletion log (which you have endorsed) even everyone has stated problems and then I have written that I'll recreate this Ayaan Chawla Article. Do reply. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

List of auteurs

Hi,

Can you userfy List of auteurs plus the associated talk page? Here are some sources [12], [13] and [14]. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. See User:Valoem/List of auteurs -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, do you mind if I restore article as is and take it to AfD instead of DRV. Generally I add citations, however I think this was a clear no consensus or keep. All delete arguments were based on WP:SUBJECTIVE were countered with reliable sources. Auteur is a major part of film analyst since 1954. This list has FA potential. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not big on process for process's sake, but what has changed about the article to override the consensus of the last AfD? I see you made a few minor edits, but that doesn't seem it would significantly affect consensus. You suggested you had found some additional sources, and the reason you wanted the article userfied was to add them. It seems to me the right thing to do would be to add those sources before restoring. What do I know? I'm just a guy with a mop :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not get a chance to see what condition the article was in and now see plenty of citations. Based on that, the closed was, in my opinion, clearly to no consensus. The argument was based on the fact that reliable sources are subjective which is not a legal argument on Wikipedia as all sources regarding art review may be in someways subjective. Original research can be corrected by RS. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Curb stomping

Also can you userfy the talk page for Curb stomping to User talk:Valoem/Curb stomping article is ready for restore. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Jews and Communism. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Jews and Communism. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions for you

I see warnings on this page telling you not to remove templates and comments from Articles from Deletion, specifically the article "Jews and Communism." Why did you try to remove the article from Articles from deletion and take the template off? What comments did you remove and why did you remove them? I looked at the edit history of the page and could not see you trying to remove any comments, did you erase things from the edit history also?Smeat75 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The messages from the bots were on 9 May but when you click on "this edit" it goes to something on 13 March. I don't understand why a bot would send a message nearly two months after the occurrence it refers to. The second AfD for "Jews and Communism" opened on 9 May, the day the bot sent the messages. It is all very odd.Smeat75 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. Possibly the bot is confused? I closed the first AfD, and I vaguely remember that the automated closure script didn't delete the template as it should have, so I had to go back and remove it by hand. Hence my edit comment. I also notice the bot left me two messages about the same edit, which further makes me suspect it may have just been confused. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it because the second AfD discussion was set up before the template was placed on the article, because the article was protected. So the discussion was set up at 21:04 and the bots noticed that you were the last editor to remove the template and sent you messages. Then an administrator added the template at 22:04. TFD (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hi Roy, while "no consensus" was a quite understandable closure for this, is it possible to relist? I feel a better consensus could be reached that way. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, relisting is for when there was very little discussion. There was plenty of discussion here, so I don't think that would make sense here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh OK. Just thought I'd ask. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It was a reasonable question. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed Alleyne-Johnson

Roy,

I was the person who asked for the deletion of this article to be reviewed. I am pleased that following comments the page has been restored. I said that once it was reinstated I would review the article and edit it as appropriate, is it OK if I go ahead and do this? I had seen the text from the deleted Wiki page elsewhere on the web and knew that it needed work. I discovered the deletion when I tried to find reference to him on Wiki and couldn't find the page.

Having now seen the restored Wiki page I can see that it's not great and doesn't do the artist justice. As an example it says that Ed collaborated with New Model Army, which devalues him, the reality was that he was a fundamental member of the band for a period. Another problem is that saying he is a busker gives the impression that he's nothing more than that. I'm hoping that once I have edited people will see the value of the entry and it will be a much better resource for Wiki users.

If it is OK to edit I will start to build it up over the next couple of weeks. I have edited Wiki pages before but have not done anything this major but I will get there.

I look forward to your response on the editing question. I presume it will be ok and will start to build something up on paper pending your response. I have a slight concern that the administrators reconsidering won't see the completed page whilst they are considering. Jamiller63 (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, it's absolutely appropriate for people to work on improving the article while the AfD discussion is going on. In fact, it's encouraged. But, I would also encourage you to work on it quickly, before the AfD discussion time runs out in a week. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)