User talk:RoySmith/Archive 7

DYK for St. Mark's Bookshop
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 13:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

you moved the article not the talk page
Talk:Solar roads is still there. You moved the article name back, but not its talk page.  D r e a m Focus  03:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for catching that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

closing 2nd nom Afds
Thank you for closing Articles for deletion/Quran and Sunnah (2nd nomination). Just a note on the use of the Template:oldafdfull. The date field is for the filing date of the Afd, rather than the closing date, and the page field is for the name of the Afd, so in this case it would have been:
 * oldafdfull| date = 10 May 2014 (UTC) | result = keep | page = Quran and Sunnah (2nd nomination)

rather than
 * oldafdfull| date = 1 June 2014 (UTC) | result = keep | page = Quran and Sunnah

otherwise the discussion click goes to the first afd. Anyway, it's fixed, and I do appreciate your work. --Bejnar (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js to manage the close process. To be honest, I've long since forgotten all the details of how the templates work, and just let the automated scripts do what they do.  I have noticed that recently, an alert box sometimes pops up asking me to enter a date.  It came with no explaination, so I assumed it was just some bug in the scripts which would eventually get resolved.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Incest in popular culture (2nd nomination)
That was an abysmal close. The fact that you thought to include "Really interesting article" and "So many sources on the page" as "significant soundbites" demonstrates just how woefully poor it was. —  Scott  •  talk  15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I didn't say they were strong arguments (they're obviously not), just that they're what people were saying.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good close, Roy. Tough one to call and you got it correct.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call R&B (3rd nomination)
I can't see consensus there at all - one keep, one redirect and one delete; the nomination appears to have been a mistake, as the deleted article was about another, less notable, album with the same name. Peter James (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I treated redirect comment as essentially arguing for deletion.  With that (and the original nomination), and the fact that the sole keep argument asserted notability without providing any real evidence, the delete consensus seemed clear.  To be honest, I didn't count your comment either way, because it wasn't clear what you were arguing for.  In retrospect, there's enough confusion here (both about various peoples' intent and the nomination itself) that I'm no longer convinced my close was correct.  So, thank you for bringing this to my attention.  I'm going to re-close this as NC.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. It does look a bit confusing. For now I think no consensus is probably the right call. AfD nominations are not rationed in case someone wants to get a more definitive ruling . -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging, Looking back I could've atleast provided a better reason to keep but meh it's done, To be honest It's confusing but then again doesn't take a lot to confuse me :P, →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  16:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jashodaben
Curious about why you relisted this, since it seems to me that all the opions expressed are to delete apart from one who (imo) does not seem to understand the idea of inherited notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any strong consensus formed yet, so I figured it was worth re-listing. There's no rush.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Power
I am taken aback to find Jonathan Power has been deleted. I don't check his entry every day so I didn't know what has been going on until today. But may I say a couple of things and I hope you will reply to me at [email and phone number elided]. I was the one who persuaded Jonathan to have a Wickipedia entry, even though for years he has resisted it. I've had to exert quite a lot of pressure on this busy man to give me references. Maybe I've made the odd mistake but certainly not the ones you mention.

For example, in 1972 he won the Silver medal at the Venice Film Festival. This was reported in the London Times on September 4th 1972. It had been transmitted on BBC TV on April 5th 1972. It was also shown at the London Film Festival that year. In the BBC version which can be obtained from the British Film Institute (the national UK archive) you will see that only Jonathan Power was credited with the making of the film. In the version that went to Venice submitted by the UK government's British Council as the official UK entry in the documentary section Jenny Barraclough was credited as the director and Jonathan Power as the reporter and producer. Ms Barraclough had been brought in at a late stage at Jonathan's request to give some help at the final cut. Because of the way Venice works (unlike the London Film Festival) she was handed the medal which she still has. If you want to talk to her I can give you her email and phone number and she will tell you the above. The London Film Festival clearly credits Jonathan as the author of the film

I can help you with the other points of criticism that you and your colleague have made. I have also asked Jonathan to look up the references for the other articles etc he has written.

I am sure you must have seen from the references I made before that in 99% of the cases (there may have been the odd mistake) his references are correct. It is unlikely that a man of Jonathan's standing, who as you can see from those references has had such a successful career (and is still writing), would want to deceive you in any way.

I look forward to hearing from you and the restoration of his page so that it can appear on Wickipedia again.

Regards, Jenny Eklund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonatpower (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . In general, all communication about wikipedia should happen in public.  This is why I've elided your personal information above and am responding here.  The article was deleted using the standard wikipedia process.  You can see the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Power.  I think the biggest issue here is that it is against wikipedia policy to use this site for promotional purposes.  Please see Conflict of interest for our policy on Conflict Of Interest.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Contemporary Writers of the American West
My comments (with which Clarityfiend basically agreed) explain at length why a category would be equally unfeasible as the list, so please reread and consider striking your aside on that issue from your closing statement. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. Done.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Thomas Strakosha (2nd nomination)
In Articles for deletion/Thomas Strakosha (2nd nomination) you deleted Thomas Strakosha. What's wrong with the media coverage I provided, , ? Nfitz (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't evaluate the media coverage; I just closed the AfD and summarized the consensus of the people who did. In this case, consensus was clear.  Four out of five people commenting felt the subject did not meet notability guidelines.  This one was pretty cut and dry.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that 3 out of 4 were even aware of GNG evidence I added less than 24 hours before you closed the AFD; though I can't speak for User:Mikemor92 and how closely they examined the references (if they did at all). Either way, surely the AFD shouldn't have been closed without time to examine the new evidence, and perhaps should have been relisted to allow for such examination? Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were a case of a close decision, I might consider relisting it. But, this failed the first AfD by a landslide, and the second AfD by nearly so.  I have no reason to believe the result would be different if people had a few more days to look at it, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline your request.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do believe you have violated the guideline Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. with your persistent reliance on the number of votes, without bothering to evaluate the basis of the arguments. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar
Could you please elaborate on your rationale for closing this the way you did, keeping in mind that polling is not a substitute for discussion? Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your note. The basic issue here was one of notability.  While there were a number of sources, there were persuasive arguments that these sources were indiscriminate and did not establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You use that concept from the discussion, "indiscriminate", yet I cannot seem to find any policy that backs it up in this context - only an essay. Could you please explain how the subject did not satisfy the specific criteria laid out at WP:GNG given the WP:RS provided? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I only closed the AfD. It's not my place to defend the arguments made, or to argue any particular point of view.  I notice that on your user page, you refer to Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus.  In this case, there was a clear consensus to delete.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Outcomes
Hi Roy. Just a minor comment – and I don't have time at the moment to do more than mention this, but didn't want you question as to square footage to be buried in the close. I'm not sure if you've spent much time at the school AfDs, but that is perhaps the best analogy. There, there is also discussion in outcomes (which says: "While this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.") – in that case, the common outcome for primary and elementary schools. But that is not used only like a box score, but at AfD to drive a conclusion for a future AfD, absent the school exhibiting notable GNG substantial coverage. See here. It's an apparent consensus practice of the editors. It's certainly not as though Outcomes doesn't exist, and the editors !voting just focus on GNG. There is helpful discussion of square footage and malls here. My guess is that in both instances the consensus practice has often been to add the non-GNG fact (primary school; small mall) as a factor to help drive the conclusions. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The problem is, in most of the mall AfD's I've been participating in, square footage seems to the first and foremost item mentioned.  We even see arguments about whether X square feet is over or under the limit.  In any case (and I'm willing to admit I'm questioning the status quo here), I see square footage as completely irrelevant to us.  Our criteria should be coverage in secondary sources, full stop.  If the mall is notable, secondary sources will cover it, and then we can gauge notability by their coverage.  Certainly, the size of the mall will be a factor in the sources decision to provide coverage or not, but let them be the judge of that, not us.
 * I see similar problems in other areas too, not just malls. In sports, for example, we seem to have set up our own standards.  A player is notable if they played in sanctioned game in a fully-pro league, etc.  I see AfD's where people are arguing about whether such a such player actually played, or if they just dressed but never got on the field, or if the game was a "real" game, etc.  I won't even talk about the sillyness I see in Pokemon AfD's :-)  We are getting further and further away from the core principle, which is that we rely and depend on secondary sources.  It's not our place to be making our own judgement calls about what's notable based on some specific measurement or qualification of our own design.
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see your point of view.  And understand that some editors – though I think they are a minority, and a very small minority in the Outcomes/schools discussions – think as well that it is all about GNG, full stop.
 * When I first edited at AfDs, and in particular school AfDs, I believe I was of the view that you have. I believed that Outcomes was not anything more than what one (non-consensus !voting) editor asserted at a recent schools AfD – a mere description of the past, without impact on the future.  And that GNG was all-important.
 * But years of experience with Outcomes-influenced AfDs have shown me that there is a consensus of the participating editors in practice that Outcomes is more than that. This consensus is stronger in some areas than others – you'll almost never see a verified high school deleted (even if it fails to meet GNG), and it takes a great deal for a primary school to be kept .... even if the two schools have the same coverage.
 * I think editors just have sought to streamline the process, and not only engage in GNG weighing, but use primary school vs. high school and very small vs. large as shortcuts. Albeit, shortcuts subject to rebuttal ... rebuttable presumptions. Similar to what happens in many other areas – in sports, for example, which you also allude to, all Olympians and all major league baseball players are deemed notable.  Even if they fail to meet GNG. But minor league baseball players, for example, while generally non-notable, can be notable if they have a certain (high) level of substantial coverage.
 * And yes – I've seen the arguments recently that person x is signed to a team but has not yet played a game, so he is not notable ipso facto. Well, I imagine one has to draw a line somewhere, but it's not clear to me that that is the place, and in any event it is a waste of time, as the person almost always does play a game ... so the benefit of deleting such articles (for a very short time) seems exceedingly small, if indeed it exists at all.
 * While I shared your view that we should just follow GNG, I recognize that in certain areas such as the ones mentioned above consensus practice (at the very least; sometimes more firmly reflected) is that the Project editors at times seek bright-line rules to streamline the process. In the malls area, I think it is actually helpful – if a mall is very small (500K sq. ft. seems to attract consensus support, though some editors would go higher), I can understand that absent unusual coverage it is relatively insignificant.  Can two or three editors, hailing from the same town as the small mall and being a fan of it, influence an AfD, and have it result in a keep? Most certainly. The bright-line cut-off helps limit that eventuality. The same the other way; if a mall is over 1 million K sq. ft. – a number that it seems all would agree is a large mall – I am OK with assuming that it is notable, even if I can't find the GNG sources ... this is most helpful I would think with third-world-country malls.  Best. Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tangentially related -- since we are talking about mall deletions, there may be something of interest here as to one sysop's view on a recent mall AfD you !voted on. Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Yes, I saw that thread when it started, but haven't been following it.  It reminds me of this wonderful quote: You don't talk to people. You bully them..  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Metrics-based evidence
There is a source at Columbia Mall that includes an "eight-month-long Missourian review of records", and includes "years" of observations by one of the writers, complete with a map, two charts, and four web pages of text. For this source, you verify (diff) another editor's post that this source (emphasis added) "talk[s] briefly about traffic around the mall...". You also add that this source has one of the following problems (it is not clear which problem you associate with this source), (1) "...perfunctory listing[] in directories, etc", (2) "mention[]", (3) "in-passing", (4)  "embedded in an article about something else." At WP:Articles for deletion/Promenades Drummondville, I showed that editors had been making !votes for delete without an attempt to determine the notability of the topic. Your subsequent !vote ignores the evidence I provided that "two relevant books" could be found with the minimum WP:BEFORE D1 check. With this post at that AfD, you defended a position opposed to "metric-based evidence". Your position is a contrast with the 12 June closing at WP:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (4th nomination), which states, "...and continuing the...process of trying [to] better codify a metric for academic journals." See Age of Enlightenment. Add to this your recent indiscriminate !votes to delete malls. What is going on? Unscintillating (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What is going on is I believe none of these malls meet WP:GNG because the sources presented do not establish notability. I put very little weight in local sources, and I do not believe that square footage is a useful metric.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please support our policies and guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comet (railcar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traps (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) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cool, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination)
Hi RoySmith. Because you closed Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLPI (2nd nomination)
I thought that deletion request closures were to be policy based. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLPI (2nd nomination) was closed as non consensus. The two opting for delete used policy while the two opting for keep were vague and did not provide any sources to support the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looked to me like both sides were making reasonable arguments, so NC seemed like the proper course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs
Due to the fact that I wasn't able to response to your vote. Here we go: "The family history of royalty from 2500 years ago is the heart and soul of what an encyclopedia is all about.." — I am not arguing for deletion because I believe Georgian royals to non-notable. I created List of Georgian consorts and helped clean up many articles about Georgian kings and queens. My argument is the list of mothers is trivial and not up to Wikipedia standard. I am not claiming the mothers are not notable. We don't have any such list anywhere else in Western monarchies. If there was a distinct title documented in sources such as Queens mother or Valide Sultan that would be different, we have had articles like this, but no this is a list of people who didn't have a distinct title. It is just a trivial list.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Question
Where an editor keeps on restoring uncited material, without inline refs as required by wp:burden, including blp info, such as at Cornwall Square, what is the best way of addressing it? The back and forth of quoting wp:burden and deleting it ... is that the only way? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I wish I had a good answer for you.  Human behavior modification is a thorny problem, and one which technology fails badly at trying to solve.   One possibility is asking for a disinterested party to assist, on WP:RFC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So you propose WP:BR-RFC (bold, revert, RFC)? Epeefleche believes in WP:BRT (bold, revert, template the regular's talk page).  Whatever happened to WP:BRD?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not primarily a WP:BURDEN issue. Epeefleche is interested in reverse-ripening the article for deletion so that he can get articles deleted that would not otherwise have been deleted.  If he believed in the strength of his own AfD argument that the article was worthless, he would not feel a need to tamper with the evidence.  As for the alleged WP:BURDEN, just within the last two weeks, diff, I documented a case in which Epeefleche removed sourced material from an article he had taken to AfD.  So the mere fact that Epeefleche says that there is a WP:BURDEN issue is not proof that such exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (4th nomination)
Why did you nominate this for deletion? The only thing I see is a statement on the talk page that implies that the topic should be merged. A quick WP:BEFORE D1 look shows a scholarly 200-page book written about the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An IP editor started a nomination, which needed to be completed by a registered user. All I did was complete the process.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Cornwall Square
Apologies in advance for the length of this post.

At Cornwall Square, you edited, diff, over an edit comment that said, "talk page is next".

I stated at 3RR at 2014-07-02T06:35,
 * "I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V. There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit."

The sequence of edits on 2 July 2014 (UTC) is this:
 * 2:22, I begin to work on the article, restoring 15% of the material, 300 characters, that Epeefleche had removed in his last two edits.
 * 2:25, Epeefleche templates my talk page, when the correct next step was a WP:BRD discussion.
 * 2:26, Epeefleche edits the article.
 * 2:28 I add the eleven references.
 * 2:33-2:37 I detect and repair the edit conflict.
 * 2:50, last of my edits in that sequence.
 * 2:51, Epeefleche posts a vandalism template to my talk page. Note specifically that after I added the eleven references to the article, the next template on my talk page was "vandalism".
 * 2:53, Epeefleche again edits the article.
 * 3:05, I restore Epeefleche's edit of 2:26.
 * 4:12, I restore a stable version of the article, that of 2014-06-21T01:24:58‎, and state, "talk page is next", diff.
 * 4:18, I start discussion on talk page. Diff for all comments at Talk:Cornwall_Square.
 * 4:21, Epeefleche ignores "talk page is next" and starts a discussion on your talk page called "Question".
 * 4:22, 4:24, 4:25, Epeefleche templates my talk page.
 * 4:44, Epeefleche announces at Talk:Cornwall Square that he and I have had an "at length" discussion. Analysis shows that this "at length" discussion amounts to two templates posted on my talk page.  Roy, please pay attention to what Epeefleche thinks is "at length" discussion.  Then note the italics added to the word "already".
 * 4:48, Epeefleche posts at WP:3RR. My statement that neither editor has done any edit warring is sustained by the closing admin.
 * 12:04, You edit Cornwall Square, diff, bypassing the talk page.
 * 12:08, You reply in the "Question" section on your talk page, about my "behavior modification".
 * 12:34, You post at Talk:Cornwall Square in a new section.
 * 15:47, Epeefleche posts at Talk:Cornwall Square without replying to either of two specific questions, and he specifically does not discuss the material in the article. His attitude is uncivil and disrespects WP:CONSENSUS.

Roy, I came to this article to add eleven sources. Three minutes after I began to work, I was templated on my talk page. The speed of the response is impressive, but misguided. The proper response was to go to the talk page as per the "D" in WP:BRD.

These were sources that Epeefleche should have reported as a part of WP:BEFORE D1. The book is on the first page of 10 hits at Google books, and six of the articles are on the first page of 10 hits at Google newspapers. That leaves 4 more hits I found by looking beyond the first page of 10 hits at Google newspapers.

At Talk:Cornwall Square, there were four confounded edits    to discuss, which you bypassed when you started to edit. As part of the process of beginning to add the eleven references, there had been two confounded edits, and I restored 15% of the material Epeefleche had removed, material that lacked consensus for removal. That means that even though I was agreeing with Epeefleche on 85%, he still demanded my 100% acceptance of his viewpoint without discussion.

If you were going to get involved, why did you ignore the eleven references which I had had to remove so that I could engage in discussion on the talk page of the article? Are you trying to "win" at AfD?

I'm not sure how it happens, but I think that Epeefleche needs to do the following: (1) Perform WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion. As much time as he puts into replying to those he perceives to be opponents, this is not asking a lot. (2) Stop removing material and references from articles at AfD and articles on which he has posted a notability tag. (3) Use Template:CN tags. (4) Stop templating the regulars. (5) Observe WP:BRD.

As for yourself, I again request that you support our policies and guidelines, specifically including WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:ATD. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is. At Talk:Cornwall Square, you wrote, I think we can agree [...] that the section "Stores and Services", and the last sentence of the lede that only lists tenants can be removed as per WP:TENANTS.  Which is exactly what I deleted.  As for the rest, TLDNR.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You wonder out loud what the point is, and then almost in the same breath you state that you didn't read the post. Do you see any contradiction there?


 * It is not true that you "exactly" removed what I proposed. And you don't actually state that my proposal is why you were editing the article.  The timing suggests that you came to the article to stir up trouble, and that your involvement on the talk page was an afterthought.  What was so urgent about removing the material that you did, that it had to be done during the AfD, and had to be done in a way that prevented the building of consensus on the talk page of the article?  And if the removal of this material was so important, why was it not also urgent to restore the eleven references?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2014 July 8
Hi RoySmith. Thank you for closing Deletion review/Log/2014 July 8. When you relist an article at AfD, would you include a link to the relisted discussion in your closing statement? Instead of "Endorse, but relist on AfD", maybe "Endorse but relist at AfD"? The convenience link will make it much easier to find relisted XfDs from the DRV pages. There are two examples from Deletion review/Log/2008 May 15 (see IronGargoyle's closes). Also, would you consider restoring the deleted revisions of Talk:Megan Nicole so the full history is available? Thank you for your hard work at DRV. I appreciated that you offered detailed, sound advice to an IP editor at Deletion review/Log/2014 July 5 since there unfortunately wasn't any participation in the DRV. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. And thanks for the kind words.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, RoySmith. Regarding this edit: Would you consider linking directly to the AfD (Articles for deletion/Megan Nicole (2nd nomination)) rather than to the log (Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 15)? Linking directly to the AfD is better because the AfD log takes much longer to load. And the link to the AfD log could become a dead link if the AfD is relisted on another day's log. (I would make the change myself, but that would require editing your closing statement, which I'd rather not do.) Cunard (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. For things like this, please feel free to edit yourself.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Roy. With your permission, I will make such edits to your closes in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I will attempt to do a better job, so such corrections aren't necessary :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Jury
Thanks for taking the time to review that DRV. Hopefully in the future, I will have what it takes to get it moved back into article space. BOZ (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

deletion of HTTPhotos
Hello, I thought we should reach a consensus before deleting a page. I really didn't have this impression on the debate and given comments are quite subjective. Do you also consider the 5 sources below are unreliable or not independent?
 * COM! magazine
 * Computer Easy magazine
 * Báo điện tử một thế giới
 * CNET
 * Digital Photography for Next to Nothing By John Lewell

Thanks, FromSpace (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I could see in the debate, there was clear consensus to delete. It looks like 5 people arguing for deletion, with reasonable, policy-based arguments, and you were the only one arguing to keep.  You did present a number of sources, but the people in the debate who reviewed those sources didn't feel they were sufficient to establish notability.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, 4 people were against the article because of Notability based on 1 CNET article only and we've no idea if 2 of them would have changed their mind after knowing about the 5 sources. 1 was against because of stub status and we have no idea if he/she would have changed his mind after the last article update. I believe we could have relisted the article instead of deleting at this point. Also, I find very subjective the opinion one can give on the quality of sources and I'm not sure any of the sources listed there would appreciate to be qualified as unreliable:
 * Richie333 wanted to delete because of Notability (only a CNET review)
 * Jinkinson gently disagreed with Notability but was pro delete because the page was in Stub state
 * Dialectric said there is only COM Magazine so it's not enough for Notability (at that time he/she didn't know about the 5 sources)
 * Dmitrij D. Czarkoff: same as Dialectric's opinion and didn't change his mind after knowing the 5 sources
 * Lesser Cartographies find the 5 sources are not enough

FromSpace (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My role in closing the AfD is not to evaluate sources, but to summarize the arguments of the people who participated in the debate. That being said, I just went back and took a look at the sources you cite. I'm afraid I agree with most of the participants, that these sources do not meet the WP:N requirement. If you still feel that I closed this incorrectly, your next action should be to bring this to deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanations. I was happy to write this article but I won't spend my time trying to keep it. If people vote no, then let's delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 09:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2014 July 26
Hi Roy. In your close at 's DRV filing at Deletion review/Log/2014 July 26, you wrote, "No Consensus in this discussion, which defaults to the redirect staying deleted." Deletion review states: "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of 'no consensus' as equivalent to a 'relist'; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate." If you're interested, here are several "no consensus" situations dealt with by previous closers:
 * 1) Deletion review/Log/2012 April 14 ("no clear consensus", relist at RfD: "DRV, dedicated as it is to reviewing the deletion process, is not the place for a discussion on the merits of the redirect.")
 * 2) Deletion review/Log/2009 August 26 (no consensus to overturn, deletion endorsed)
 * 3) Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17 (no consensus, relist at AfD: "A few scattered arguments involve, among other topics, the amount of sources in the article and possible inadequacy of the debate.")
 * 4) Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17 (no consensus, relist at AfD: "it would be beneficial to open up a clean AfD on the event without worrying about BLP1E")
 * 5) Deletion review/Log/2010 August 30 (no consensus to overturn no consensus close, do nothing)
 * 6) Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13 (no consensus, relist due to recent developments)
 * 7) Deletion review/Log/2010 October 7 (no consensus to overturn, relist)
 * 8) Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15 (no consensus to overturn, restore and relist: "the AfD could have benefited from better arguments on both sides. If the deletion action was not supported by a consensus here at AfD, the logical outcome is to avoid the permanently binding effect of the subpar AfD and open it up for another round.")
 * 9) Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6 (no consensus to overturn, relist at AfD due to AfD closer's recommendation)
 * 10) Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13 (no consensus to overturn, deletion endorsed)
 * 11) Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13 (no consensus to overturn, deletion endorsed)
 * 12) Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2 (no consensus to overturn, do not relist "because nobody argues for a relist")
 * 13) Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9 (no consensus to overturn, do not relist)
 * 14) Deletion review/Log/2013 April 16 (no consensus to endorse the close but "a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary")

The DRV closers' rationales may provide some good insight about when to relist and when not to relist.

The Fomato redirect was speedily deleted so it was not discussed at Redirects for discussion. Instead, it was taken to DRV where there was no consensus regarding whether the speedy deletion was correct.

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions only, so the divided DRV discussion indicates the speedy deletion was not uncontroversial. On that basis, I would advise a relist so the redirect will be discussed in the proper venue. Would you consider revising your closure to "no consensus, list the redirect at RfD"?

Cunard (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This was on RfD, closed there as wrong forum, and kicked over to DRV. Kicking it back to RfD just seems silly.  The amount of effort that has been invested so far in this totally trivial matter exceeds the value.  There are more important things to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You may consider it a "totally trivial matter" but did not. He created the redirect and contested its speedy deletion at DRV. As  wrote at the DRV, "it isn't clear enough for speedy since its been challenged in good faith, it should therefore be restored and discussed at RfD. (where I expect to argue for deletion)." Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July  25 was speedy closed as "wrong forum" so the redirect hasn't had the chance to be discussed at RfD. "The amount of effort that has been invested so far in this totally trivial matter exceeds the value" could easily be said about all of the discussions at Redirects for discussion, but editors consider it worth their time to participate in those discussions anyway. Cunard (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, it's not protected. If you like, just recreate it and RfD it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you restore the redirect, I'll take it to RfD. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Deal. Done.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Roy! I have listed the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 3. Cunard (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD
Hi. Why do we have an old discussion about Cody Lohan in today's AfD? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like somebody added it to the list by accident. Also looks like it's been cleaned up by now.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also beneath XUVO we have a Michael Logan something. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Looks like somebody totally borked this up with manual editing.  I've fixed it (I hope).  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2014 August 7
Hi, thanks for closing Deletion review/Log/2014 August 7. I've relisted the discussion and manually repopulated the category, so that's all done now.

Should you add a link from the DRV to the re-opened discussion? – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Done -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, just to add on this:- It's rather rare for DRV to restore a category overturning a CfD. The most recent case that I recall was the rather interesting one at Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24 when the closer faced a similar problem to yours: how to repopulate the category?  In this case Fayenatic london's very helpfully done it for you.  If you ever need to do it yourself, at the moment the process is to find the relevant section of User:Cydebot's contribution history and revert it.  You may feel it's worth asking User:Cyde if he can get his bot to automate the repopulation of categories as well as their depopulation and deletion?— S Marshall  T/C 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the tip. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tenants
I was wondering what you thought of the restoration of tenants here, since you edit in this area and seem to have a degree of expertise in it. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the edit comment said, re-adding tenants. WP:TENANTS is an essay and this is just a stub anyhow. That's true, but I'm not sure it's relevant.  Sure, it's "just an essay", but it's the best we've got.  The argument about the weight of essays vs. policies has been going on forever and we're unlikely to resolve it here.  Likewise, I don't see how the article being "just a stub" means anything useful.  But, you knew all this already :-)  More specifically, I disagree with that material being added back to the article, which is what I suspect you were hoping to hear me say.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All that is interesting. Essays come in different flavors, to add an issue you didn't discuss (though your response was very thoughtful, for which I thank you).  This one indicates that it reflects the consensus of the wikiproject in question.  Tx for your thoughts. Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
I hope I don't have to wait so long for a reply to my post there... Peridon (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar (continued)
I understand that there were arguments made against having this as an article (whether I agree with their validity or not), but not one argument was made against my suggestion of redirecting the page instead. The suggestion was simply ignored! This page should be restored and redirected (with its history intact) until someone decides to come up with a single argument against redirecting the page (again, I'm not talking about my opinion of such argumentation here, just its very existence or lack thereof). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your note. I just reviewed the discussion.  The keep consensus is pretty clear.  I agree that nobody made any arguments against redirect, but by the same token, nobody else supported it either.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus must be constrained by policy. Without reviewing the sources, the consensus here is that the topic is not wp:notable, not that the topic should be deleted.  The nomination states that this is part of another topic within the encyclopedia, which means that WP:BEFORE C1 is being challenged without good cause.  The "correct" result here would have been a speedy keep WP:NPASR before anyone else had posted.  The "speedy keep" !vote itself suggests that this is not a true "speedy keep", but a "strong keep", which is the same as a "keep".  It is important to note that there were no objections based on content policy, so the quick fix is to restore the edit history underneath the existing redirect.  IMO, doing so moots any further procedural challenges.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Roy, I see at WP:REFUND that you still think this was a delete consensus. If so, why did you not mark the redirect G4?  My question doesn't require an answer, but I believe your view is relevant to the discussion at WT:Deletion review.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit silly. All I did was close what looked like a pretty straight-forward AfD.  I'm really not into wiki-lawyering, and I'm certainly not going to answer questions about why I didn't perform some hypothetical action.  This seems like a terrible amount of effort being expended by multiple editors over a trivial question like whether this should get a redirect or not.  I've moved on, and I suggest everybody else does too.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/EBeam
I don't much care about this article one way or the other, but I am peeved that you overrode my decision to relist the debate. AfD only works if we don't all run around reverting each other's decisions. Your rationale that the user did not give "enough specificity to evaluate" the book sources is particularly brainless. I found them easily enough by clicking on the "book" link in the template provided for that purpose. All the sources noted by James are in the first page of results. So essentially, you deleted the article because the user did not give you a convenient hyperlink. In any case, it is for the community to evaluate the sources, not the closer, which was the whole reason for relisting the debate in the first place. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your close. SpinningSpark 08:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ugh, sorry, I didn't notice that the last relist was recent. My bad.  No need to get peeved, it was unintentional.  I'm in a rush right now, but sure, I have no problem with unclosing it.  I'll try to find time to do that today, or feel free to do it yourself if I don't get to it quickly enough.  -- RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, "I made a mistake and will fix it" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I withdraw my peeve. SpinningSpark 18:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, assuming I got all the technical parts right, I backed out my close. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. A search for ebeam + whiteboard produces the four results I mentioned immediately and plenty of others. Links for them are: (continues on page 66). Are you prepared to re-open this? Does it need to be taken to DRV? James500 (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RfA
Hello again RoySmith: I'm presently considering another run for adminship, per User:Stalwart111's recent suggestion for me to have a new RfA. Since you said on my talk page back in March 2014 that you'd be receptive to providing an RfA nomination, notifying you about the present discussion occurring here on my talk page. Please feel free to post any comments on my talk page there, if you're interested in doing so. NorthAmerica1000 13:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 10:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Received a message pertaining to you on my talk page that was sent incorrectly to me. NorthAmerica1000 23:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/VideoPad
Hi RoySmith. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 00:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship
Hi.

I am calling about the DRV case of ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship. You seem to have re-opened and re-listed the article's AfD but have only partially closed the DRV thread and didn't restore the article. Am I missing something?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Never mind. I hit Shift+F5 and both pages are now as they should be. Strange though. I can't think how the browser's cache could have come in the way. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello RoySmith: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  NorthAmerica1000 05:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

RfA
Hi RoySmith: After significant consideration, I have decided to move forward with another request for adminship, and I'm seeking nominators/co-nominators. Per your previous input regarding this matter, please see the Request for adminship discussion I have started on my user talk page. Thanks for your previous input, and I look forward to hearing from you. NorthAmerica1000 12:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 02:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Annoying reverts
Hello, I am encountering problems with user User talk:Awhp: He keeps reverting edits and removing the copyright violation template on Basal lamina, stating "There was no copyright violation found"--yet the article does contain copyrighted material from Junquiera's Basic Histology. The warning message I left on his talk page was also ignored and blancked. As an admin, is there any way you could prevent that user from doing annoying edits and reverts? Thanks, --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No promises about what action I'll take, but I'll take a look at the situation. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

RfA page created
Hi RoySmith: To facilitate your hopeful RfA nomination, I have created the RfA page, located at Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000 2. Per discussion on my talk page, User:Spartaz will be writing the main nomination. As per previous discussion in which you graciously stated support to write a nomination, I would greatly appreciate receiving a co-nomination from you, which you can add directly to the RfA page.

As a reminder, please do not transclude it to the main RfA page, because I don't want the discussion to become live until November 15, 2014. Thanks again! NorthAmerica1000 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RAML
Quick question since you closed Articles for deletion/RESTful API Modeling Language: is RAML (software) a recreation of the same page? Thanks in advance shellac (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at the two pages. They are certainly similar, and have large sections of text identical between them, but there's enough differences that I would feel uncomfortable invoking WP:G4 here.  My suggestion would be to bring the new page to AfD, where people can take a closer look at it and decide.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspected that would be the case. My feelings echo yours: G4 isn't quite right. Thanks. shellac (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Assistance
Hi, I wonder is user allowed to copy massive chunks of information to article, which is not directly related to city ? I'm asking this due in Ganja, Azerbaijan article, "Changing of historical landmarks in Ganja" section doesn't directly related to the city and contains information from source which obviously is not well established.Xoncha (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect comment in the DRV closing
Saying, "Unscintillating is requesting that the article be moved to his user space" is not correct. And the statement is contrary to reason given that the article is already in my userspace. My request at the DRV was, "I request that...community consensus is to userfy to my userspace". Please focus on the words "community consensus". As I stated at WT:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown, the "MfD closing was that there was no community consensus to userfy to my userspace." Earlier today on my talk page I paraphrased, "At the DRV, I have requested that the close be changed to show that community consensus is for me to work on the article." Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks again for your time and work in providing your RfA nomination. Your nomination, along with those provided by Spartaz and Yunshui, was greatly appreciated. NorthAmerica1000 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Noodles typo or clever pun
I've learned that in the dangerous world of puns, sometimes acknowledgement alone can be success czar ⨹   06:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)