User talk:RoySmith

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Thank you for your comments This is my first article, so I appreciate your guidance.

The site owner David Klein has placed a Creative Commons Public Domain copyright waiver at https://vibranthealthandwealth.com/product/fruiticulture-planting-a-world-to-end-hunger-poverty-pollution-wars-ebook-by-david-klein-ph-d-don-weaver/.

Please let me know if this is acceptable and if more action is required.

Abdulelah Alsadi

Whatever

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

Draft:Hennie Bosman

Good day RoySmith

Citations adsinfo and own website has been removed. My apologies

Regards

User:Barry Ne 18.43, 16 June 2018(UTC)

Draft:Reverend Samuel Phillips

Hi RoySmith,

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

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

Thanks again,

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

I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), but I still don't see a clear answer to what the correct title should be. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article you linked. My personal consensus is that "Reverend" should not be included in the title of the article. The naming convention article states "Honorifics and other titles...are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (i.e. Mother Teresa)." Although he is referred to as Reverend Samuel Phillips in nearly all sources, I don't think he falls under the category Mother Teresa does. Elizabeth II for example is commonly referred to as "Queen Elizabeth II" but her Wikipedia page title is simply "Elizabeth II." That's just my personal opinion. I'm open to other suggestions. --Nannochloropsis (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went with Samuel Phillips (reverend), because Samuel Phillips is already taken as a disambiguation page. If somebody wants to quibble about the exact title, it's easy to move later. Thanks for writing this; it's a nice article about a historical topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Nannochloropsis (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

RoseRalph (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Daniel Levine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Hi. Yes, you can certainly resubmit this after finding better references. That's the whole idea of the review process; submit a draft, get feedback, make improvements based on the feedback, and resubmit. But, before you do resubmit, I would suggest you read WP:RS to learn what makes a good reference, and WP:BIO to learn what we're looking for in a biography. As for references in non-English sources, that's perfectly fine. For the english-language wikipedia, we require that articles be written in english, but the sources don't have to be. Using non-english sources will make it more difficult to review, but that's not a reason to forbid their use. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roy. I will find more sources, read the guidelines and submit again. RoseRalph (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, glad I could help. I'll probably not do the review on the resubmit. I think it's better to get different people reviewing, so you get the benefit of different points of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

AshleyTRyan (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Embark Veterinary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, a question. Do you have any connection to the subject company?

I'm not sure what you mean by, the article keeps getting rejected. As far as I know, it's been rejected once. In any case, looking at your sources:

The Verge. This is a reasonable source that talks about the company in depth.
Slate. This is mostly about genetic testing in general, and only makes a passing mention of Embark.
GenomeWeb. This is behind a paywall, but from what I can see of it, it's routine coverage of a press release.
NPR, which I shouldn't even bother reading since four is more than three, but, like the Slate article, this is mostly about genetic testing, and only mentions Embark in passing.

In summary, I don't see sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The editor is a friend of mine and came to me a bit frustrated by it. Just so you know, the GenomeWeb article is not coverage of a press release and the Slate article is about what Embark is doing and did specifically with their customer's data and how what Embark is doing could impact society. Embark's the only company relevant to the discussion, but it's true the article focuses on the impact to society and less on talking about Embark. To help the editor out, here are some more sources like the Verge one:

There are many more too, so if you're looking for a specific type of coverage, I'm sure the editor can provide them. Seems like the key question here is if the company satisfies WP:NCORP, so appreciate your evaluating that and providing helpful comments!

Please see WP:COI to understand your disclosure obligation. Also note, our mission is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide publicity for companies. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, definitely aligned. I'll let the editor follow COI disclosure on her own, as the policy is to allow editors to do it on their own. That said, I believe the criteria for company notability are not meant to be subjective based on the editor, but either the company has reached notability or not, per the criteria. Can you provide a response as to the above three articles if you believe those plus the Verge article fit the guidelines, which seems to be a separate question from who edits the page and how? Thanks!

I have already reviewed four sources above and came to the conclusion that WP:NCORP is not met. I am unwilling to review any additional sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It appears that there is a criterion that's currently not listed on WP:NCORP but is being applied. I want to make sure to correctly understand that criterion, though, so I can help out by suggesting the appropriate edit to WP:NCORP. Is the reason not to review more sources that a company that otherwise satisfies WP:NCORP but whose first editor highlights sources a senior editor doesn't believe fit the criteria is ineligible for further consideration of sources, or because if a senior editor believes that a company's page is edited by someone with a conflict but that otherwise satisfies WP:NCORP is ineligible for consideration?

The reason not to review more sources is because I'm a volunteer and I get to decide how I spend my time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This is just to let you know I listed the dispute on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements so you won't have to read the additional articles. I completely agree that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, so hopefully someone with more time can make sure we're doing that as best as possible. If you do feel like there is any content on the page that is unduly self-promotional or breaks any other guidelines, please do let me know. As I've said on the talk page, I am an employee of Embark, but the idea of creating an article and the content were not my idea nor encouraged by me. I just jumped in to help when told about this dispute, as I do also firmly believe the criteria for listing have been met and thus it is making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to include it (and Wikipedia must believe so as well if those are their guidelines).

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

Review requested

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

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

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

Micah hainline (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Memorial to the Confederate Dead (Jefferson Barracks) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Anything you can find that fits the bill?

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting adjustment to AfD closure.

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

I generally don't worry much about the difference between keep and NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but then please do update it to "No Consensus". -- DexterPointy (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it again. I think I made the right call. Why is this trivial distinction so important to you? -- RoySmith (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of people incorrectly using past AfD results, attempting to hammer down speedy closures.
Why is this so important to you?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever. I'm sorry you don't agree, but I think I made the right close. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so important to you? (a "trivial distinction" in your own words.) -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I can see you're not going to let this go. My role when closing a discussion is to dispassionately evaluate the weight of the arguments on both sides. In this case, I decided the weight of argument was to keep. Now, somebody who doesn't like that result comes along and urges me to change that. I'm willing to take another look and re-evaluate my decision. Whenever I do these re-evaluations, I try to also be dispassionate, and not fall into the trap of trying to satisfy the person who asked, simply to make them happy so they'll go away. I did that, and came to the conclusion that my original close was correct. That's really all I can do. I will admit that I didn't put as much effort into this re-examination as if it were a delete/keep thing, because, quite frankly, the consequences just don't justify the effort to split hairs about a close keep/NC decision. If you truly think my close was in error, and it's important enough to make a fuss about, deletion review would be the correct venue to argue your case. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not really answering the question, and I think DRV is over-the-top because it's only a matter of changing the word "keep" to "no consensus" (no consensus defaults to keep, i.e. no real action needed).
So, given that Sandstein is already reasonably familiar with this (ref. his good closure of the "sibling" AfD:List of breakfast drinks, 2'nd nom.), then, much simpler than DRV:
@Sandstein: What do you think about the simple word change of Keep to No Consensus for AfD:List of breakfast foods ?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not commenting on this because it might end up at DRV where I often close or participate in discussions. Sandstein 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

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

Child suicides

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

WP:AGF, my friend. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible, I'm very much afraid. KJP1 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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

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

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

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

Yo

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

I'm not opposed to userfication, but if you're not going to do anything with it for six months, may I suggest that we leave it where it is and you can always come back and ask in six months if new coverage appears. This way, we leave it in a predictable place if somebody else wants to work on it in the meanwhile. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I'm not really seeing any volunteers. I'm the only long-term editor in the discussion having a case of the "maybes". I'm not emotionally attached to it, but I am fond of Knoxville and the whole WiR thing. GMG ^talk 00:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going anywhere. When you're ready to work on it, it'll still be there. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thrill of It All Tour closure

Hi Roy. Came across Talk:The Thrill of It All (Sam Smith album, a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thrill of It All Tour closure. Sam Sailor 23:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Yeah, I know what I did wrong. Thanks, I'll try to fix that up. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've got it back to where it should be. Please let me know if you see anything else.. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect outcomes at AFD are obviously only possible when a suitable target exist, so perhaps Evad could stick a target check into XFDcloser that issues a warning in case of a typo. Sam Sailor 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reconsider deletion of Alternative names of Crayola crayons

You closed this discussion and deleted the article despite a majority of the participants voting to keep the article or merge the contents into other articles, stating that there was "strong agreement" that the major source was unreliable, and therefore the page failed verifiability. But surely the reliability of a source, while a proper subject for AfD debates, needs to be determined based on Wikipedia policy, not a headcount of people who simply dislike the source. And this doesn't seem to have been the case. These are the reasons given, which for convenience I've grouped by whether they discussed the reliability of the source in question:

Lojbanist, the AfD nominator, never addressed the reliability of the source or even participated in the discussion after making the nomination, simply calling it "listcruft".
DanielRigal, who seconded all of Lojbanist's Crayola AfD's and was/is the main voice urging deletion in each case, began by stating that he wasn't "sure" how reliable it was; his initial arguments against the page were "pointless, indiscriminate... copyvio... spirit of plagiarism" and "unencyclopedic", to which he subsequently added "fancruft" and "indefensible".
Carrite voted to merge, without discussing the sources.
DGG voted to merge, alleging at the same time that the contents belonged on another wiki, not Wikipedia, and did not discuss the sources.
1|2|3k voted to merge per Carrite and DGG, without discussing the sources.
TimTempleton voted to merge, without discussing the sources.
The Gnome argued that there were no sources at all, the article was unencyclopedic, an "indiscriminate collection of stuff", and promotional. This editor did not acknowledge any sources and did not discuss their reliability, but did cite policy to warn me against replying to his post or anyone else's.
Coolabahapple said that the subject was not notable, and that there were not enough sources, although some of the information could be merged into other articles; in reply to which I spent some time tracking down additional sources for what I could, and added several to the article. While Mr. Welter's article was still the most important source, the other sources cited corroborated his claims, in some cases citing him as the expert in the field. This editor never disputed the reliability of the main source.
Daask simply alleged that the main source was unreliable, but did not give any reason.
Ten Pound Hammer alleged that Mr. Welter's article was "a personal fansite" and therefore unreliable; this editor regarded the contents as trivial and suggested merging them into other articles.
Ajf773 argued that the article fell afoul of WP:NOTCATALOGUE, and only subsequently argued that the primary source could be disregarded because it was a "blog", which it is not; then because it's self-published, and therefore unreliable by definition.

So, of eleven participants in the discussion other than myself, including the nominator, only three claimed that the primary source was unreliable, one of whom gave no reason, and the other two seem to have regarded it as sufficient to note that the source was self-published; neither addressed the expertise of the author, the methodology of the article, or the accuracy of its conclusions. WP's guidance for self-published sources states that they can be reliable when written by an expert in the field who is acknowledged by independent third-party sources. Neither Ajf773 nor anyone else ever attempted to refute that Mr. Welter's article, "The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola", was written by an expert in the field, or that his expertise was acknowledged and relied upon by independent and reliable third party sources, such as the Huffington Post, the Morning Call, or The Art of Crayon. Mr. Welter's article provides copious detail on how his data was compiled and analyzed, together with illustrations of the history he was documenting and comparing the different crayon colors under discussion. The merits of his research were never disputed by any participant in the deletion discussion. My contention is that a source giving every indication of reliability through adequate documentation of the process of research and analysis, accompanied by diagrams and other illustrations, regarded as expertise by independent and reliable sources, and apparently the most authoritative source that exists, should not be excluded as "unreliable" merely because some editors don't like it, without any discussion of its accuracy or methodology, or indeed any evidence that it is unreliable. Mr. Welter is acknowledged as an expert in his field; no independent source seems to dispute his expertise or the accuracy of his research; all we have are bare assertions by other editors that it must be unreliable and excluded, without any discussion of its expertise or accuracy. The article should not have been deleted on the grounds that a minority of editors simply argued to exclude a source, without basing their arguments on actual Wikipedia policy or discussing the merits of the source itself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several people at the AfD urged you to take WP:BLUDGEON to heart. Please do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Audie_Award_Winners

Hi. I read your comments. The comments about the awards being simply industry self-promotion can be said about 95% of all awards. That doesn't mean the awards or their winners are not notable. The Audie Awards already have a general page explaining the background of the awards. That page is part of the the Wikiproject Awards and Prizes. This is a list of the winners of those awards and one of the criteria for notability is having won a significant award. As for it just being a list, yes, it is just a list. Like most list pages, it is simply an organized compilation of the information. Wikipedia considers that enough for the AVN Awards, the Manga awards, some nearly 100 pages of playboy lists, Archibald Prize winners, and countless others I haven't seen. Trying not to be crabby about it, but I am. SorrySJTatsu (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to resubmit it. Other reviewers might have other opinions. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Emily_L._Spratt

I don’t understand why the Emily L. Spratt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_L._Spratt) page was deleted. There was an active conversation about whether the page should be deleted but it was not at all unanimous.RogerWilson (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree with the decision, but I don't have a lot of experience on Wikipedia like you do.RogerWilson (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternative names of Crayola crayons"

Greetings. In this AfD closing, you commented that "the strongest argument here [in favor of deletion] is essentially that this fails WP:V" which "nobody cited explicitly." Perhaps you did not notice my citation ("Entirely unsourced, non-encyclopaedic material," etc). No biggie, of course; just me being a stickler for accuracy. Keep up the good work. -The Gnome (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had indeed missed that it linked to WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mfd template

My draft at Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick still has that Mfd template you placed and that template has been on for quite a while. So can you please tell me what you are going to do with that template. It also seems to me that the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Suicide of Rebecca Ann Sedwick has already finished and Chrissymad already approves the draft.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion hasn't been closed yet. At some point, somebody will come along and close it, and then we'll find out what happens next. I don't know when that will happen. My guess would be sometime in the next couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a couple of days can you please leave a message on my talk page about what's going to happen with my draft because I want to be up to date on what's going on. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do is add the MfD discussion to your watchlist. If you're using the web client, look for the "star" icon in menu bar at the top and click on it. Then, anytime that page gets edited, you'll be able to see it by clicking on the "Watchlist" link at the very top of the page. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Dear RoySmith, refer to this AfD. The subject website has backlinks and sourcelinks on many RS sites. Examples are Dawn, UNESCO, UNODC and RT. I can provides many government officials website links that source subject sites. Is this enough to make subject site notable? if yes, please remove notability template from Subject Page.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD, but the notability template was placed by Saqib, so they're a better person to talk to about whether the notability concerns have been adequately addressed. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will consult Saqib on his talk page. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rushi-ing into things

Did you notice that the speedy tag on Draft:Vogeti Ramakrishnayya had been applied by Rushi1122334455 (talk · contribs) who created the page. I have just sent you two states of it. Since Rushi is disowning it for some reason, why don't you repost it and get the credit - I don't don't mind if I am not credited. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing that out. I was kind of wondering why you deleted it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

```` even i dont want any credits, of vogeti ramakrishnayya page. i am not actually trying to disow it but i am unable to make it accepted. so if you require then you can post it.i can give you the complete details if required. Rushi1122334455 (talk · contribs)

Edward "Eddie" Fung entry

My entry about Eddie Fung was deleted because of copyright infringement. I don't think you realize that I am Eddie Fung's wife and the author/editor of his memoirs, The Adventures of Eddie Fung: Chinatown Kid, Texas Cowboy, Prisoner of War. My entry is a summary of the book that we wrote together and I made a point of citing the book only when I lifted quotes from it.

I have never seen the blog "American POWs of Japan" before, and I did not copy the Congressional Record statement by Senator Kamala Harris that I used in its entirety in my entry from this blog. I copied it from the original document that was presented to me at my husband's memorial service. And I cited the Congressional Record as the source.

The article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel is based on an interview with my husband and his book. Thus the similarity in coverage and there was one quote from the book that we both used. Again, I cited the book as the source.

My opening sentence is the same as the book description in my publisher, the University of Washington Press's web page as well as in the book jacket blurb. Since I helped to write that blurb and it appears in my book, I did not think it was necessary to cite it.

For all of the above reasons, I don't see how I can be accused of copyright infringement.

Judy Yung Tombickfong (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your note. There's a few different issues here. First, if you wish to donate materials to which you hold the copyright, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for the process to handle that. I'm not actually an expert on that process, so if you have questions about the details, WT:Donating copyrighted materials would be a good place to ask.

Also, please see WP:COI for our policies on editing by people with conflicts of interest. The two main points there are that editing by such persons is strongly discouraged, and if you do decide to edit despite your COI, you are required by our terms of use to disclose this on your user page. The details can be found at WP:COI.

Lastly, please note that complying with our copyright and COI disclosure policies are a requirement, but don't actually guarantee that your article will be accepted. You still need to meet the notability requirements described in WP:NBIO.

User:Tombickfong/sandbox

-- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My entry on my husband Eddie Fung is a summary of his memoirs, THE ADVENTURES OF EDDIE FUNG, published by University of Washington Press. As the author/editor of the book, I hold the copyright. Would Wikipedia publish my entry if I donated it as copyrighted material, and if that were possible, can someone show me how to do that? Or should I give up on getting my entry published in Wikipedia because I am related to the subject and find someone else to write the entry? Judy YungTombickfong (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this one step at a time. First, the process to donate your materials is described at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. As I mentioned above, I'm not an expert at that process. I'm aware that it exists, but I've never actually gone through the process myself, so I'm not the best person to ask for help on that. You might try asking for further assistance at Wikipedia talk:Donating copyrighted materials, or sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

Next, I can't promise that resolving the copyright issue will ensure publication. You should read WP:BIO for what we're looking for in a biographical article. It sounds like your intent here is to have an article as a memorial to your husband. While a worthy goal, it's not what we're here for. Please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL for more on that. I know our processes seem confusing and chaotic, but fundamentally, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and everything we do is with that goal in mind. The fact that we make it possible for anybody to create an account and edit, often makes it difficult to see our real goal, and differentiate us from social network sites or web hosting providers. We have very specific (if confusing) requirements on what we'll publish and what we won't. Those requirements all revolve around our mission of writing an encyclopedia, and may or may not support what you're trying to do.

Finally, when you ask, should I give up on getting my entry published in Wikipedia because I am related to the subject and find someone else to write the entry?, I assume you're talking about the conflict of interest problem. Finding (which I assume means, hiring) somebody else to write the article doesn't solve the COI issue. If somebody is being paid to write an article, that's a conflict of interest exactly the same as if you wrote it.

I hope I have been of assistance. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mithaq Kazimi

Hi Roy, I have given my reasons why the page should stay, kindly review and hopefully it is sufficient this time around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Master (talk • contribs) 12:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx and Unknown Master: I looked at the current version, and compared it to the version deleted from the AfD I closed. I think this is a marginal G4 at best. WP:G4,excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. That applies here. On the other hand, I really doubt this would survive another AfD. This version really doesn't say anything the other one didn't, and the sources are pretty weak. Some (IMDB, Twitter, CrunchBase) are clearly not WP:RS. Most of the others don't excite me very much either. My recommendation is that this should be brought to AfD rather than G4. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 North American cold wave

How did you determine consensus to merge 2017–18 North American cold wave? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: I'm not sure I understand the question. You were one of the people who supported merging at the AfD. But, to answer your question, I read all the commentary and came to the conclusion that the people arguing to merge has stronger arguments than the people arguing to keep. Even the nominator supported merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My first preference was Keep, but "If this article cannot be kept, it should be redirected". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for 2017–18 North American cold wave

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2017–18 North American cold wave. 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Flash (season 1)

Can you please see if the draft is well-developed and move it to the mainspace? I find it great enough to be there. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please just be patient and somebody will get to it. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments This is my first article, so I appreciate your guidance.

The site owner David Klein has placed a Creative Commons Public Domain copyright waiver at https://vibranthealthandwealth.com/product/fruiticulture-planting-a-world-to-end-hunger-poverty-pollution-wars-ebook-by-david-klein-ph-d-don-weaver/.

Please let me know if this is acceptable and if more action is required.

Abdulelah Alsadi