User talk:RoySmith

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Deletion review for Hummingbird Heartbeat

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. 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.

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:15, Monday, December 23, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Racism

When DGG, a sitting Arbitrator, accuses me of racism, my response was justified. Tarc (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cities_spanning_more_than_one_continent

This seems to be a case in which a deletion result was manufactured: From what I can tell (lacking history, since robots.txt precludes archival of history on archive.org), a vandal removed most of the content, and everyone voted based on this version, so it was unanimously decided as "delete" without debate. I've found this article useful in the past and am disappointed to see it gone, especially without due process. It's unclear whether you realized this before closing out the debate. Calbaer (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the article history, it seems like most of the deletions were due to unsourced statements. So, the assertion that the deletion was done by a vandal seems like a stretch (as does your statement that it was deleted without due process). But, if you ping the AfD participants to this page, and get any sort of support from them, I'll be happy to open a deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You cite the article history; how do I see article history? As I indicated, my statement that it seemed like the judged version of the page was a vandalized one isn't based on history since I can't see it; it's based on the discussion (which notes that it's silly to have a list page with one entry, something certainly not reflected by those versions available on archive.org). Calbaer (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the article (and its history) is deleted, so it's not visible to non-admins. But, like I said, from what I can see of the history, there's no evidence the other entries were removed by vandals. It looks like they were removed because they were unsourced. Like I said, if you would ping the AfD participants and there's some support amongst them for your position, I'll be happy to open a deletion review (and, restore the article, and its history, for the duration of the review). Or, you can start on yourself, but based on what I see, it's unlikely to go anywhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, RoySmith. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vinylz

Hi, the AFD for the above article was started by an ip, is that allowed? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes it is. But, there are some technical issues to making the nomination. See WP:AFDHOW. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A thank you for keeping List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair

thanks for keeping the page. Christianjoe94 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Roy, Just came by to say thanks for closing the DRV and for taking everyones comments on board, Ofcourse I don't entirely agree with the outcome but hey that's life but anyway just wanted to say thanks for closing it and thanks for all your contributions here aswell, Have a great day, –Davey2010^Talk 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 00:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

AFD closing

Hello RoySmith, This is regarding your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair as "Keep". Although I see you have been thanked for this I saw that 10 editors weighed in to delete and 4 for keep. I see problems that are insurmountable concerning WP:N (you have even mentioned WP:N on your talk page), especially since 6 of the references are from one source, one is trivia, and only one provided by an editor has some mention concerning some of the subjects in the article. The entire first paragraph is not cited in the references so is WP:OR, and using the reference is WP:SYNTH since it does not provide any corroboration to what is in the article, other than Malcolm Turnbull either being fond of beards or having a fetish, but this is conjecture since the references places the entire perspective as a question. The addition of this name and reference introduces WP:BLP criteria. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people gives guidance for inclusion of people on a list, as does Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people. There is nothing in the Andrew Fisher article or reference, other than pictures. In fact two references I saw mentioned facial hair at all. At best we have pictures being used to prove notability.

Does the article belong on Wikipedia? That is the question and you have decided yes against overwhelming consensus to the contrary. There is one source providing information (6 references), one source with nothing towards notability of the subject, and one source that does mention certain subjects in the article. This does not provide instances of multiple independent sources proving notability. There is a "major" problem with the fact that each entry from the single source is a biography of individuals, a couple making mention of beards, mustaches, or other facial hair on the subjects. Read the referenced biography of Billy Hughes then read the article.

There was consensus, a super majority, that !voted to delete. There is the other article List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair that you deem to give precedence for inclusion. Notability is not inherited. Each article must stand on it's own merit, and notability is fundamental, and a "precedence" in any other direction should be stopped by admins.

To me, in closing and stating that "Most of the delete arguments are emotional", when there was a supermajority consensus, is far-fetched reasoning to discount their !vote, even adding that policies and guidelines were not expressly provided and linked to. The policy that admins should follow concerning WP:CONSENSUS is WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, that states, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.". This does not mean that comments not explicitly providing direct links to policies and guidelines are to be discounted but comments contrary to these policies and guidelines. When an editor comments, 1)- "To justify this list we would have to show that the generalized topic, and not just its specific manifestation, is worth noting. That is that there is some caring beyond trivia weather a state leader is clean shaven or not.", is not against policy, in fact supported by WP:N (worth noting) and WP:TRIVIA. 2)- "Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content.", does not need an explanation of WP:NOT, 3)- WP:LISTCRUFT is self-explanatory, 4)- "There might be an article about it for American Presidents, but that doesn't mean that this one should be kept either." WP:OTHERSTUFF, and 5)- "collection of indiscriminate information, not a notable topic per references in article.", WP:INDISCRIMINATE, part of the WP:Five pillars, and WP:N #1 (WP:GNG; significant coverage in reliable sources) and #2. This policy also states, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.".

A recap: We have a couple of references (biographies) that mention facial hair on Prime Ministers of Australia along with four others that are just plain biographies. One reference is just about a current Prime Minister that may or may not have a "thing" for facial hair (that does not have any), and a reference provided by an editor that is only a photo gallery with some captions. Watkin, Deakin, Cook, and Fisher are listed. I can not imagine, unless invoking WP:IGNORE that upon close inspection, that there is notability to keep this article.

WP:GNG states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.", yet you chose to conclude that a supermajority consensus of 10 did not provide adequate rationale to support their decision for delete over 4 for keep.

I feel an obligation, not only to Wikipedia but to other editors, to see if you will re-examine your decision. Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As you mentioned, this isn't about counting votes. As I looked at the arguments to delete, I found many such as This is a joke, right, I don't see how this article should be kept, and Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content, none of which express any policy-based reason. I was also particularly unimpressed with the arguments (two, I think) that everybody has facial hair. It's pretty clear the inclusion criteria is not the biological existence of follicles, but whether the person chose to shave or to groom a beard/mustache. Once you get rid of those arguments, the head count is much closer. But, what it came down to was the list of sources presented, and I didn't see anybody making cogent arguments why those sources were not acceptable. So, after review, I stand by my close. If you feel strongly about the issue, I would have no objection to you bringing this back to AfD for another look, or even asking for a review. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Symantec Endpoint protection Help

I found the page with the promotional links Symantec Endpoint Protection and it was kept for long time in Wikipedia & it is also nominated for deletion several times. I would like to nominate the page again for the deletion, would you please help me on proceeding with this. I've recently updated deletion request for the page "McAfee Endpoint Protection" & it is removed now. I wish to do the same for this page to Wikipedia more clear out of promotional stuff. (WikiGopi (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC))