User talk:RoySmith/Archive 10

Articles for deletion/Clarence Gonstead
Would it be unreasonable, for you to reopen this and relist for further discussion, I've just presented the sources and argued WP:AUTHOR. I think the discussion may turn, I've just presented policy based rationale and that his technique is used by 58% of chiropractors which was missed earlier. I just got involved a few hours ago. Valoem  talk  contrib  22:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Valoem asked me to look for sources about the subject. Here is my research. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Way too much for me to read. As I've mentioned in the past, brevity is a virtue.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like the sources presented were discussed and dismissed, so I'm going to pass on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roy? We've both been around for a long time, how often do we see prior voters in an AfD change their vote? Barely anytime was given to the arguments presented (only a few hours), I was looking for more participation, on top of that, I thought AfD is not a vote, was my arguments not stronger? Please reconsider, would this not be better than DRV? Valoem  talk  contrib  11:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've both been around a long time. The AfD was running for two weeks.  You knew where to find it if you wanted to participate.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I missed it at the time it was not on my watchlist, plus AfDs can be opened for a month, you've always been reasonable, perhaps if you could userfy it to my space + talk page, I can work on it and add sources. I'll ping you when I think it is ready and you can decide if another AfD is required. This is better than other bureaucratic processes in my opinion. Valoem  talk  contrib  12:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved to Draft:Clarence Gonstead. More useful than pinging me would be pinging all the other participants in the original AfD; they did the review, I'm just the clerk.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I get the talk page too. So do you mind if when the article is ready I restore and ping the nominator? It is best to get permission from the closer. Valoem  talk  contrib  14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:Clarence Gonstead restored in-place. As for permission from the closer, I have a somewhat less protective view of these things than many people.  Like I said, I'm just the clerk.  My job was to close the AfD, and I've done that.  I don't feel any sense of ownership here, so it's not my place to be giving people permission to do things or not.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in these situation I find it easier to act with administrative approval than without, I guess your leaving discretion up to me? Valoem  talk  contrib  14:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Scary, isn't it?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

could you please explain...
In your recent closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Sarah Coyne you wrote: "The result was delete. There's a clear numerical consensus to delete. Moreover, looking at the keep arguments, I don't see any which are either policy-based or persuasive."

I request clarification please. Since these discussions aren't votes, a "clear numerical consensus", whether it is to keep or delete, or some other action, is of secondary importance, correct. It is my understanding that the closing administrator's role includes discounting opinions that are ill-informed, or counter-policy.

Many of those voicing "delete" opinions stated some variation of "Coyne is not notable because she hasn't actually done anything". I thought these claims were counter-policy, and explained why. I thought the closing administrator would either agree with me, and discount those opinions, or they would explain why they didn't agree with me.

Some of those voicing "delete" opinions stated that Coyne was an instance of a BLP1e person. I thought these opinions were mistaken, and explained why. I thought the closing administrator would either agree with me, and discount those opinions, or they would explain why they didn't agree with me.

Sorry, but it seems to me that if the questionable delete opinions, those that are clearly counter-policy or ill-informed, are no longer counted, there is no longer "a clear numerical consensus" to delete.

So, I would appreciate it, if you tried to explain why you found my explanations of why the "hasn't done anything" argument was counter-policy unpersuasive. I'd appreciate it if you would explain why my explanation of why BLP1e didn't apply wasn't persuasive. Geo Swan (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * When there is this strong a supermajority (I count 11:3) the arguments on the majority side need to be exceptionally unfounded to be ignored. I did not see that. I saw reasonable arguments put forth why this person did not meet our notability standards. Really, this one seems about as straightforward as they get. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)
The article S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) has been nominated for deletion. You might be interested in participating in the discussion as someone who contributed to the previous discussion. StAnselm (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

DelRev
I'm not  asking you to reopen them, but I think summarily closing good faith requests however unlikely to be granted is not a good idea. It would be possible to argue that all the arguments were not based on policy, and the closer made the mistake of accepting them. The two you closed yesterday & today were of course not this way, being correct applications of policy, but I have seen some that were, tho more often in the past than recently. One person should not be the judge of that in an appeal process, no matter how right they are.  DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, and perhaps I allowed myself to get a little hasty. Yet, I think it's important to take a step back and look at what we're trying to do here.  In a court of law, people have rights, and all the legal processes exist to protect those rights.  But, we're not a court of law, or a social network.  We're here to write an encyclopedia.  Sometimes it seems that we've lost sight of that, to the detriment of our primary goal.  That being said, if you (or anybody else who wanders by here) feels I acted inappropriately, I have no problem with you reverting my closes.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Gazetteer
First let me say that I appreciate your work at Articles for deletion. When doing some unrelated clean-up, I noticed your comment of 22 November 2015 at Articles for deletion/Matakana War Memorial, namely I can find no policy which says that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. I was rather surprised at that, since the first pillar of the Wikipedia, as stated at Five pillars says: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Not a policy, but in the heirarchy of guidelines and policies, fundamental prinicples generally rank higher. Anyway, I thought that you'd be amused, and with luck, not too chagrined. Take care. --Bejnar (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello RoySmith: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 18:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Almost New Year (UTC)

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Hooray for America
Re your block of Hooray for America -- who is the sockmaster? NE Ent 00:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No idea, but it's obvious this is not a new user. Brand new users don't find their way to DRV a few hours after first creating their account.  And he's clearly being disruptive.  We don't need this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just happened upon this ---and was once a recipient of some screwed up wrong block--- so followed it. It really got interesting when he was screaming his innocence and asking for help. He was cleared of the CU, as far as what that means because there are evidently ways to avoid it, then he was reinstated. I just happened to look at his contributions and found he was blocked ---again.
 * My wonderment is that he was reinstated on some short rope then ---then gone again. I didn't look at "the whole picture" (and some of it I can't see) so thought I would inquire as the rationale seems weird. First, Let me state: I am all for protecting Wikipedia. I do it almost daily from my point, but would like to know why an immediate block was placed on what looks like suspicions. My curiosity for this, since the resulting block for sock puppet was cleared---is that he passed the CU (?), he stated he was wrongly blocked, apparently for comments to whom I guess is an admin, and I didn't see where he made other edits or comments. If I am not mistaken he did admit that he had edited before and didn't have an account, but this wasn't questioned any further. This could be a reason he knew some of the ropes. He could also be smarter than credit has allowed, to figure the DRV out, or I suppose smart enough to be able to game the system. I am not sure what he did that was disruptive if he was wrongly blocked, so would like some insight if you don't mind? Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * New user shows up, gets in the middle of a highly controversial debate right off the bat, reopens a DRV that had just been speedy closed, reverts the close of that DRV, is quoting obscure sections of administrative policy, knows about WP:ANI, knows about checkuser, etc. Let's get real.  This isn't some innocent newbie.  This is somebody who knows all the ins and outs, and has both an agenda and an attitude.  That's an unwelcome combination.  -- RoySmith (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Undelete Security Practices and Research Student Association Page
Hello,

We would like to request that you undelete the Security Practices and Research Student Association page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Practices_and_Research_Student_Association

We use it to log history for our club and events that occur each year. For information on our club, please see our site here http://sparsa.org/ and here http://ists.sparsa.org/

If you need anymore information from us, please feel free to reach out to us at eboard@sparsa.org.

Sparsaeboard (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Of Page: Peer Viqar Ul Aslam
I would like to contest the pages deletion as many sources have been neglected by the reviewers, I smell rat on the reviews done by user: Kashmiri... I would like you to reconsider the page and revert there deletion! Thank you! Thewikisquad (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Thewikisquad (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The credibility of this deletion is under question as the first person to set this for afd had been blocked as sockpuppet ... Named: The Avengers! I strongly believe this deletion should be rolled back! I have stopped my contributions just because I feel there are people here who have monopoly over issues and lack supervision! Deleting a page with sources? I mean there has been some discriminative checking on some pages I have been going through! Please look into the matter or else close my account too! A blocked user initiated the afd and it was considered!! This needs some investigation! Thewikisquad (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers.com account renewal
Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on January 12 2016. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until January 12 2017, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here: Newspapers.com. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. HazelAB (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jaybahadur Hitan Magar
Hi RoySmith. Thank you for pinging me at Articles for deletion/Jaybahadur Hitan Magar. My searches for sources using "Jaybahadur Hitan Magar", "Jaya Bahadur Hitan Magar", and "जयबहादुर हितान मगर" returned nothing more than the dubiously reliable sources mentioned in the discussion. Those sources mostly mentioned the subject in passing. The biography of the subject written by his son isn't independent. I don't think there's enough material available here to establish notability per Notability. However, I understand the participants' desires to keep the article. There might be offline newspaper or print sources about the subject. This is a similar case for me to Articles for deletion/L. Nichols Buttons. I would not be able to support retention because no sources have been provided about which independent independent books/articles have discussed the subject in detail. I would not be able to support deletion because of FUTON bias and Offline sources. If forced to choose a position, I'd probably weakly support deletion per no evidence of the subject's meeting Notability. Feel free to ping me in the future if you'd like me to look for sources for a topic. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg-Süd
I don't understand your close here. I see nothing for a closer to do but read the AfD. The policy to WP:Preserve the redirect is asserted and unrefuted, and deletion equally clearly causes damage to the encyclopedia. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , and , would you support undeletion of the article's history under the redirect to facilitate a merge to Bundesautobahn 524? If there is concern that the redirect will be undone, perhaps the redirect can be fully protected to allay the concern. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There really wasn't anything of usefulness to be merged, as I recall.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , based on the Google cache, I think there is encyclopedic information that could improve Bundesautobahn 524's coverage of Kreuz Duisburg-Süd's geography and history. I think this content is what Unscintillating found worthy of preserving. Sources like this articleWebCite in Derwesten (published by Funke Mediengruppe) could be used to verify the material. I appreciate your taking a look. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I support delete over redirect. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion, other than my distinct annoyance that WP:PRESERVE is still brought up in deletion arguments when it is an editing policy with no bearing on deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been on Wikipedia for over four years and this is the first I have heard of such a viewpoint. Please see WP:Insignificance, which describes the relationship between the topic guideline WP:N, and the WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The AfD was pretty open-and-shut, I don't see how I could have closed it any other way. If somebody wants to mine the old text, I'd be happy to userfy it upon request. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would give me the opportunity to do some edits such as adding the source Cunard found to the article before returning it to mainspace as a redirect. OK.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved to User:Unscintillating/Kreuz Duisburg-Süd -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Roy, there is something unusual going on for the two articles that currently mention this kreuz. Those articles are Bundesautobahn 524 and Bundesautobahn 59. What are these IPs up to? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/King's Own Band (2nd nomination)
On a close like the one above, I believe more of an explanation for the "no consensus" explanation might be merited. Something that explained what factors you weighed and how you found the arguments balanced, or something to that effect. In my view, since "no consensus", by necessity, defaults to "keep", the "keep" arguments should have to be better than the delete arguments to even get to a "no consensus", but that's a different discussion. I just feel like a more nuanced close would have been useful in this case. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm concerned with the fact that you give no weight to the article having been deleted on the Maltese WP. How can a band not notable enough to pass muster for deletion on IT'S OWN COUNTRY'S Wikipedia possibly be notable enough to have an article on the ENGLISH Wikipedia? I just feel like dismissing that piece of the equation altogether is a big mistake, particularly given the weakness of the keep arguments at that discussion, and the fact that there was not much refutation at all of the nominator's claims for deletion. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 03:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is some logic in what you say, but each wiki makes its own decisions. If you really feel strongly about this, I suppose you could bring it back to AfD for another discussion.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is, when the decision is numerically close (and this one was, even though the "Keep" arguments seemed to me quite weak), such things ought to be considered. While I have no expectations that you will reconsider this close, I hope that in the future you won't dismiss such evidence of non-notability as was presented regarding the band article's deletion on its native country's Wikipedia. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review. You might want to chime in there. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will. I appreciate your openness to discussion about it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Charvériat
Hello RoySmith, regarding your redirect of Thomas Charvériat to Island6 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Charvériat. There was a COI investigation after which you stated 'may affect things in the future' and that for now, the consensus was to redirect: two votes for redirect and one for keep. If you could review the strength of arguments presented, based on facts (rather than expressed opinions), I think it shows notability, and thus that the article should be kept. Unfortunately, the AfD was launched before discussion of the fundamental issues at the Talk page, i.e., before the bulk of independent sources was listed. The issue of COI has been discussed without resolution. Opinions on that aside, the notability of the artist is determined by the independent verifiable sources. Claims of sock and meat directed at myself, too, proved negative or inconclusive. My role as a former curator, now editor specialized in visual arts, had been to bring these sources/citations to light. Note: This whole process was launched by a suspected sockpuppet, see this exchange, and this one. Thanks for your reconsideration. Coldcreation (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the page wasn't actually deleted, and it's not protected, you don't need an admin to get involved here. My suggestion would be to start a conversation on Talk:Island6 on the topic of splitting Thomas Charvériat back out into its own article.  The issue at the AfD was that there were insufficient WP:RS.  So, I would also suggest you find a number of sources which meet our requirements for being independant, reliable, etc, as laid out in WP:RS, and present those as part of your argument.  Ping the people who participated in the original AfD so they're aware of the discussion.  If you can garner support for splitting it back out, go for it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already produced close to 20 independent and reliable sources, posted here, demonstrating the notability of the artist, per WP:RS. Coldcreation (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, those sources were considered and rejected at the AfD. But, in any case, I'm not the one you need to convince.  LIke I said, open a discussion on the article talk page and see if the people editing that article and/or participating in the AfD agree with you.  I'm afraid there's not much more I can do here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Retroscripting placed under Deletion review
For your information, I have initiated a Deletion review discussion about your closure of Articles for deletion/Retroscripting. J I P &#124; Talk 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/AusGamers
Hey—as a deletion review regular, I wanted to ask your opinion of this AfD's "no consensus" closure before I take it to discussion. I thought it was clear that the keep votes were not based in policy. czar 02:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I would have closed that. I certainly agree with you that the argument by  doesn't add anything to the debate, and the list of sources by  are mostly marginal.  Bringing this to DRV would not be unreasonable (of course, query the closer first to see if this can be resolved).  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, the closer wasn't sympathetic. Appreciate your feedback! czar  02:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2016 Masters Champions League
Hi, I'm curious as to the policy behind your closure of the above AFD. Certainly the weight of numbers was in favour of keeping it, but to be honest, I can't see any substantial arguments about how the only season conducted by the league is independent of the organization which operated said league. Would it be inappropriate of me to commence a merge discussion? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well,I almost called that one No Consensus, because I didn't really see any good arguments on either side. I certainly see no harm in starting a discussion on the article talk page about a merge.  If you can build consensus, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response. Personally, if I came across the article first I would have proposed a merge rather than taking it to AFD. I didn't want to be seen to be stepping on your toes so soon after your decision. I think a merge discussion is supposed to last 2-4 weeks and I will notify the cricket project, so hopefully it will get a better conclusion. Thanks again, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have mentioned this discussion in the merge proposal. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool)
You closed Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool) as delete, writing that the people arguing to keep failed to provide any sources. This is correct, but an AfD commenter in the discussion wrote: "The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia . So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)" Here is a quote from the source Arxiloxos provided, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards authored by Michael Ian Shamos and published in 2002 by Globe Pequot Press: "Chicago 1. (game) A form of ROTATION in which the balls are not racked but are placed FROZEN to the rails at various predetermined DIAMONDS in numerical order counterclockwise about the table. The striker must hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table first and receives credit for the numerical value of any balls pocketed on the stroke. The custom in the city of Chicago was for the lowest-scoring player to pay for general refreshments and the next lowest to play for the TABLE TIME. 1890 HRB 88, 1916 RGRG 63. Also called BOSTON POOL, CHICAGO POOL, or MEXICAN ROTATION. 1900 May 61. The term 'Rotation' derives from the arrangement of the balls in the game of Chicago and not from the fact that the balls are struck in numerical sequence. Other U.S. cities appearing in names of billiard games are BOSTON and HONOLULU. 2. (game) A synonym for ROTATION. 1979 Sullivan 99. General references: 1890 HRB 88, 1891 MB 334, 1919 Hoyle 633." I think the "keep" editors were supporting retention on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, so I don't think a "delete" close is justifiable. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that falls way short of what's necessary. Please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that source in itself is not enough. However, that source includes several references like "1919 Hoyle 633", which refers to this entry (image) in The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing published in 1921, which discuss Chicago in a page-and-a-half: "CHICAGO POOL This game is played with the numbered pool balls from one to fifteen and a white cue bal as in Fifteen ball Pool the object being to play upon and pocket the balls in their numerical order 4S it ti The table is laid out for the game by placing the i ball against the end cushion at the first right hand diamond sight at the foot of the table as seen in the diagram the ball is placed at the center diamond sight on the same cushion the remaining thirteen balls are placed in the order of their numbers at the succeeding diamond sights as shown in the diagram All things being equal it is immaterial which way the numbers run in setting the balls for they may also be set so that the i ball is placed on thj diamond sight which when standing at the head of the table and looking towards the foot or lower end appears as the left hand diamond sight on the end rail with the 3ball placed at the right etc The three sights on the end rail at head of the table are not occupied by any ball In opening the game the order of play is determined by throwing out small numbered balls as in Fifteen ball Poo q and he whose first play it may be strikes the cue ball from any point within the string line The opening stroke must be to strike sie uwc ball If that ball is holed it is placed to the credit of the player and he continues his hand until he fails to score but in continuing he must play each time upon the ball bearing the lowest number on the table After playing upon that ball however should any other be pocketed by the same stroke irrespective of its number it shall be placed to the player's credit so pocketing it If the line of aim at the ball required to be hit is covered by an other bowl the player LAy resort to a bank play or masse etc 10t should he fail to hit the required ball he forfeits three receiving a scratch Should a ball be holed by a foul stroke it is replaced upon the spot it occupied at the opening of the game but should it be the 8 11 111 or 2 ball so holed they being within the string and the cu e ball in hand then the balls specified are to be placed upon the pyramid or red ball spot or should that be occupiv as near to it as is possible as in Fifteen ball Pool The player having the lowest aggregate score is required to pay for general refreshment for all in the game The player having the second lowest score pays for the game The rules of Fifteen ball Pool govern Chicago Pool except where they conflict with the foregoing rules" "HRB 88" refers to the 1898 book The Handbook of Rules of Billiards. A Google search for the title doesn't return an online copy of the book. But it returns mentions in sources like the 1903 book The Encyclopædia Britannica: New American supplement. A-ZUY, which indicates that the source is considered reliable. "RGRG 63" refers to the 1925 book Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender (Amazon link), which is not available online. Please let me know if that is enough to change your mind. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. I've done that for you.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Greek words with English derivatives !!
Hey, that was an extremely useful page you just deleted for no reason! Please restore it, just because some people who do not know Greek and ancient Greek are, because of this, unable to see the value of the information such a page supplies, that is no reason to delete it. Please restore and go after all the problematic pages full of wrong information instead of perfectly useful and decent ones. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't respond to anonymous rants. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the Greek morpheme page was a useful entry and should not have been deleted. Take your culture war elsewhere.70.51.62.152 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletion of this entry is not justified. please re-instate it as it is useful for students of etymology and philology as they relate to the English language. This is not a standard dictionary entry. I view the deletion of this page as highly problematic and would greatly appreciate your -reconsideration of the matter. Thank you.AlecTore (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming all of the above comments are really from the same person. The article was discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Greek morphemes used in English, and there was clear agreement that it should be deleted.  My role in that process is simply clerical; I summarize the positions of the people participating in the discussion.  So, there's really not much I can do here.   -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who posted the first comment above, but it wasn't me. The second comment was my wife. the third was my own. Sp where can I go to have this decision reviewed and (hopefully) reversed? AlecTore (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That would be Deletion review. I won't be insulted if you take this there, but to be honest, given the AfD discussion, I don't think you're going to get very far there.  Let me suggest a few ideas which might be more productive.  First, take a look at English words of Greek origin and perhaps it would make sense to include your material as part of that article (as suggested in the AfD).  Second, look into adding this information to wickionary, as suggested.  I'm not very familiar with wickionary, so I'm afraid I won't be of much help on that.  Another possibility would be to write a new version of the article in draft space, i.e. Draft:List of Greek morphemes used in English, paying particular attention to the issues raised in the AfD.  Then, take your case to deletion review, presenting the new draft.  If the draft addresses the AfD concerns, then it's likely it will get approved.  However, I don't want to unduly get your hopes up.  The major issue at the AfD seemed to be that The list is potentially unmanageably large and arguably open-ended.  That's not going to be an easy argument to counter. , , ,  perhaps the AfD participants have something useful to add here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. As for the size and open-ended nature of the list, that would not be a very difficult argument to overcome. After all, the very nature of Wikipedia is argument enough against such a notion. Knowledge expands and is open-ended. Take the entries on any given country that holds regular elections requiring change of government names and additions to historical notes. indeed, that argument is quite spurious and i am rather surprised that it held sway... In any case, thanks again! AlecTore (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . You have inspired me, thank you.  You might want to take another look at the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While Wikipedia in general is certainly an ever-expanding compendium of information (though still an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate repository), that doesn't automatically mean that single articles, especially list, can or should consist of large collections of data. Lists in particular fall under the WP:Stand-alone lists guidelines, as well as under the guidelines for general articles. Would you make a "List of English words"? How quickly do you think that'd get deleted? LjL (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I still feel the same as when I placed my opinion of weak delete, namely, Yes it does not add anything one should be able to find in a dictionary, so delete provided it does appear as a category in Wiktionary. Weak because if it can be made encyclopedic, and I would like to see such, for example a discourse on when these terms first appeared, by whom, where, what in, and at what levels in society, etc.. I personally do not like plain lists of anything, but actually would like to see this if it was more than just a list and was a companion article to English words of Greek origin as per my suggestion in italics. Aoziwe (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

ECG
Hi, will you disambiguate links to ECG?

See WhatLinksHere

Almost all of them, of course, are intended for the former primary topic, Electrocardiography. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2016 February 20
You closed Deletion review/Log/2016 February 20 as "no consensus". I would like to start an RfC on Talk:Federal Way Public Academy to discuss whether a merge should still take place after my rewrite of the article. Is that okay? Cunard (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We just had an AfD which determined that the article should be merged, and then we just had a DRV which upheld the AfD result (if only by the default action of No Consensus). So it seems to me it's not okay.  And, yes, I know you rewrote the article.  That didn't seem to persuade the people who participated in the DRV.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The DRV participants focused only on the AfD decision. No one mentioned the rewrite, which makes the article immune to db-repost because it is no longer "substantially identical to the [version reviewed at AfD]". They did not comment on whether a merge is advisable with regard to undue weight now that the article has been rewritten. The undue weight issue, which was not addressed at the AfD or DRV, is what an RfC would discuss. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked me a question. I answered it.  I'm sorry you don't like my answer.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Before my rewrite, an editor redirected the school article to the school district article without doing a merge. Since my rewrite, no editor has redirected the article or done a merge. This is likely because editors are aware that a merge of Federal Way Public Academy to Federal Way Public Schools would be undue weight and that a merge of several sentences would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia's readers. If an editor again tries to do a redirect without merging the sourced material, I will then open a discussion. But if no editor takes further action, the article will remain as an unmerged standalone article, which is policy compliant because the rewritten article is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" per G4. Recreation of a page. Cunard (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am notifying you that because the article was redirected without any merge taking place, I have started Talk:Federal Way Public Academy. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I should clarify what I view my role here as. When I close an AfD or DRV discussion, I'm acting in a largely clerical role (i.e. as a clerk, not as a cleric :-)). I don't have a stake in this.  Nor, do I view my role as enforcer.  It's not my place to either give you permission to do something, nor to deny permission.  I do appreciate your keeping me informed, but I'm not sure if you're expecting me to do anything here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. I am just keeping you informed and not expecting you to do anything. :) Cunard (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Afrocandy
Hello, the page Afrocandy does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I put a speedy deletion tag and it was removed by the user Oshwah many times and now he's saying something very strange that a person doesn't have to be proven notable to be on Wikipedia, please see his comments on my talk page. I'm bringing this to the attention of an admin because this page needs to be deleted. The sources quoted are blogs and she has made no impact on the Nigerian music industry, has won no awards and is not known even in Nigeria. Do your own research please and see for yourself, all she has are small mentions. Please advise. Thanks PaulAshford (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the advice gave you here was good advice.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Que?
Hello Roy,

I see you've decided to send me a notice quite some time after all of this was over. I've been Mentored by Oshwah since this all happened, which is quite some time. So unless your sending the same message to all the other 'editors' that have behaved in a completely disrespectful, arbitrary, blatantly biased, utterly combative manner towards me from the start to which I reacted to, then I take this as yet another attempt by an 'editor' that has a agenda to support his/her friends over the new comer to the wiki, to be very blunt about it. I will not tolerate anyone doing anything towards me without first explain themselves, and yes I've read various WP articles on various matters that came up over all of this since, including my use of the English language. I'm an easy going person, but I have Zero tolerance for any Arbitrary 'vandalism' or 'battleground' attitude towards me, and I do not tolerate the minuscule language certain 'editors' have used when writing to me. I appreciate your polite manner in your message, and I have no ill will towards you, but I find it very strange to have you 'show up to the party' as late as you have and rebuke me. You'll forgive me if I find your motives questionable. I have attempted to remove the 'idiotic' chat stream but someone keeps reinstalling them. I make no apologies for my initial re-actions to the rude, self gratifying attacks that were made towards me in the first place. I have since been more than polite and generous with my interactions. I'm also calling it what it is when it comes to certain 'editors' behavior on here, and that is extremely USA biased, with utterly unacceptable attitudes about various issues. The guidelines are one thing, and with the exception of Copyright Laws, mostly arbitrary in those who 'decide' to 'attempt' to enforce them, I sorry to say. I'm not illiterate or an uneducated man, nor am I someone who takes anything on the chin and cops it sweet, but I'm also a very amicable and reasonable man, when I'm afforded the correct respect to begin with. The whole issues happened because other 'editors' think, very incorrectly, that they can speak to someone in any manner they see fit. You'd do better spending time correcting the attitudes of those that enticed me in the first place, but that doesn't seam to make it though to certain 'editors' that have been involed with this at all. You can read my response and my neutral 'white flag' on Drmies page. Once again I have no ill will towards your message, but I consider it to be very late and not required. All the best Nuro   msg me  00:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PS - If you consider my response to be 'combative' I think your missing my point about the attitudes of the long time editors on here, well some anyway. Nuro   msg me  00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And I see that one of my projects has been deleted..... Nuro  msg me  00:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And to conclude, being a diligent editor is not my problem with other editors. 'Short hand' writing by those that are old timers on here is extremely rude when you don't have a clue as to why this 'person' is trashing your work. Lesson all those involved need to learn, because claiming they are in the right by their actions alone to uphold the Wiki By Laws? You've got to be kidding me....manners mate, manners, the most paramount thing on the face of this earth, because were I come from, if you don't show them from the get go, you get put down by all and sundry hard and fast, hence my re-actions. And for those that don't think they need to explain themselves, their not going to get far with me. Nuro   msg me  00:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cameron Ocasio
The sources pulled in this AfD are easily refutable and I thought Onel5969's delete comment would suffice. If it doesn't, I'd be happy to respond to the sources if you undo the close. czar 22:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's NC, so there's nothing barring you from starting another AfD immediately. I see your point, but it's difficult to be sure I'm acting in an unbiased way if I grant your request to reopen it, knowing explicitly in advance that your intent is to argue in a specific direction.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your delete of Paul Newell (politician)
Could you send me the link to the article so that I can check the sources again?A21sauce (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Restored to User:A21sauce/Paul Newell (politician) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD
Hi : A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America1000 03:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for closing AFD
Thank you for closing the Reactions to Brussels bombing article. The initial non-administrative closure by a troublemaker was clearly wrong. If she wanted to do it, just apply to become an administrator. Initially, I just undid the closure and left it open, which is a very small step, nothing aggressive.

Wikipedia has a strange culture. Very knee jerk to have these reactions articles. Similarly, porn stars, video games, and TV episodes are considered Wikipedia worthy articles. There is also a sub-culture of bad behavior.

Thank you again for a proper closure even though I think Wikipedia culture should change about these reaction articles. Whiskeymouth (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30
Thanks for the closing statement. I always find it unsatisfying to close as "no consensus" but sometimes it is what it is. I hope the participants can work it out at a slightly higher level, and discussion is already well underway, and getting heated too, so that's exciting. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, on numbers, the close should have been "overturn". What does it take to get admins to follow community consensus? If 100 people said overturn and one person said endorse, would we have got a "no consensus"? AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not quite fair. I count a 10-8 majority in favor of overturning, but what we're looking for to overturn a decision is more than just a majority, we're looking for consensus.  Unfortunately, that's a term that has no hard-and-fast definition.  I'm generally looking for something more in the 3:2 range to declare a consensus to overturn (but, please don't quote me on those numbers).  I'm also looking to see if either side made an argument which is demonstrably wrong, or so overwhelmingly strong that it outweighs the pure number count.  I didn't see that in this case.  What I saw was two groups arguing opinions about the relative strength of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES vs. WP:GNG.  And, like I said, the overturn side had a small majority, but not enough for me to call it a consensus to overturn.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Human–animal marriage
Hi... Is it acceptable to remove large part of this article: Human–animal marriage. See the History. --محمود (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that the recent AfD resulted in Keep, I'd say to that these massive deletions of text (essentially blanking the entire article) are inappropriate.  I'll go so far as to say that doing so three times, even though spread out over several days, violates the spirit of WP:3RR, and if continued, could lead to being blocked.  Everybody should try to work out their differences of opinion on the article talk page.  As an admin (especially as the one who closed the AfD), it's not really my place to get in the middle of a content dispute.


 * That being said, let me take a step away from the conflict and see if I can help provide a path forward. I haven't read this carefully, but my impression (from reading the edit history) is that EEng believes that while the current content is unacceptable, the sources presented at the AfD could be used to write a better article.  So, rather than just blanking what's there, go re-write the current article using those sources!        pinging the AfD participants (I hope I didn't miss anybody), who may have some additional insights they wish to add.


 * Fele free to continue the conversation here on my talk page, if you want, but let me suggest that Talk:Human–animal marriage would be a better place. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What was there made about as much sense as Murder listing a grab bag of news stories about murder. Most or all of what little might belong in the article e.g. traditional legends is cited to non-RS anyway. I encourage those with an interest in the subject to use the sources listed at AfD to build a sensible article, but little or none of the material there now belongs, ever -- the classic case for WP:TNT.  E  Eng  20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's so "random grab bag" about them. They're all about people marrying animals, and the sources don't look that bad, at a glance. I expected to see at least one Daily Mail, and far less BBC. Hardly comparable to murder. Ten people are probably being murdered right now, but I doubt anyone married a snake today. I don't care much, but as far as I do, I'd like to see these cases restored. If there's something terrible about a particular bit, work it out like gentlemen. No blowing shit up. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A second AfD on Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings
You closed Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings last week. It has been renominated by the same user, Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings (2nd nomination). A speedy close per WP:DELAFD is due as it is too soon. The concerns of the nominator that their attempt to trim the article hasn't found consensus yet are more appropriate for the talk page of the article at this point. On a side note, notifications haven't been sent out to the participants of the first one yet. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In regard to keep and close: I think the renomination is disruptive as well, I made a request for it to be closed here, If you think there is a better forum to do so let me know. As I'm uninvolved, I could nac close it, but I've chosen to refrain from doing so at this time. Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Godsy. I think it'll burn itself out, or someone else will close it quickly.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a little worried about WP:STICK, but there's no hard and fast rule about immediately re-nominating after an AfD closed as NC. So, I'd suggest you just let it run its course.   Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings does seem like a better place to be discussing the issues, but the world won't end because there's a second AfD.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Humor (positive psychology)
Hi Roy. Thanks for your close of the deletion review of Ricky Clousing. I recently completed the merge you proposed above and the article is ready for deletion. I put a speedy tag on it but speedy seems a bit slow at the moment. As you may be familiar with the situation (I know it was nearly two years ago) I thought you might be willing to delete the redirect. I also wanted to add my 2 cents on merge and delete closes. Basically to comply with our licenses I first had to move the article, which took a bit of trial and error to find one that would make a suitable redirect and wasn't already taken, before I could complete the merge (see WP:MAD). I don't want to tell you how to close deletion debates, and it is of course doable to merge and delete, but I would like to suggest that to keep things easier (and to prevent editors mistakenly deleting the contribution history) there should be a strong reason not to leave a redirect before such closes are made. AIR corn (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Boulevard System (a recent close)
Greetings! You recently closed an AfD concerning the Chicago Boulevard System. Your closure stated that doncram "believes the article can be improved, and he's willing to put in the effort to do so. My suggestion would be to give him time to work on this before bringing this back to AfD again.

However, instead of improving the article, he just reinstalled all the material to the article by an Edit Summary of: "restore material deleted (I am corrected that these deletions were DURING the AFD discussion, which is worse). In fact, the material was already removed four days before the AfD case.

Moreover, it seems that user doncram got just recently "...indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed- This was ruled by admin Miniapolos, and if you take a look at the sources or the article content proposed, there is no doubt that this article shouldn't fall under the same category. Indeed, the article was created just a couple of months ago. I think this clearly indicates the user's problematic behaviour in the topic area.

I don't think the editor is actually going to fix the problems presented at the AfD discussion. Therefore, could you please have a look at Talk:Chicago Boulevard System? Indeed, the current proposal to overcome the problems is to "drop the capitals" of the very article name. Should I re-propose the article for deletion? It seems that the commentators at article Talk Page are the same that commented on the AfD case, all who were in opposition. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Now the opposing AfD participants seem to be edit warring the material back into the article, although none of the problems are fixed:.
 * Oh boy ... for example, the registration form was reintroduced (something that was already mentioned in the AfD), and that's the most WP:OR as we can get.
 * Just for curiosity, the aforementioned source doesn't even mention the "Chicago Boulevard System", but is about "The Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", which is one among the many historic districts, such as the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District. Moreover, there also exists the "new park and boulevard system", as expressed by 'Bleidsten, B. J. (2016) Chicago's Park & Boulevard Systems''.
 * Well, this was also brought up in the AfD discussion, but the editors seem to be determined to bring all that material back to the article. The same problems are introduced again, though. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what to say. It sounds like this is a content dispute, and I'm really loath to get into the middle of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Long story short, doncram promised to "put an effort to improve the article", and on that basis you decided to give "him time to work" instead of deletion which seemed inevitable. However, he just restored all the material that was already discussed in the AfD discussion, i.e. no improvements has bee made. Therefore, I don't think it's a content dispute. In your closure you said that: "The deletion arguments sound pretty strong to me, especially given the dearth of good sources, and normally I would be willing to ignore the headcount and call this a delete, based on the strength of the arguments."


 * Now the same opposing parties of the AfD continue like the AfD never had existed. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think what you're suggesting is that I should declare that the article has not improved sufficiently within the allotted time and therefore I'm going to change my close from NC to delete. I'm sorry, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do that. If you really think this should be deleted, I'll go as far as stating that in my opinion, sufficient time has passed that bringing it back to AfD for another discussion is reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Language Creation Society
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Language Creation Society. 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. Sai ¿? ✍ 10:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)