Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoySmith (talk | contribs) at 13:33, 18 January 2015 (→Deletion review for The Weight of Chains 2: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 Misplaced Pages "Editathons", where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages 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.

DRV

Welcome to The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Adventure Start Page
• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Misplaced Pages Help pages

-- 16:29, Thursday, January 23, 2025 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 December

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

• On the Chef (software) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello RoySmith, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, NorthAmerica 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Deletions and backlinks

Hi Roy,

I noticed that you deleted The Kremlin Letter (plot) after AfD, but didn't remove the backlink pointing to that deleted article from The Kremlin Letter#Plot. This is part of the standard approach recommended at WP:AFDAI. If you normally do this part of the work and overlooked it on this occasion, please pardon me from writing; otherwise, I hope this helps.

Trusting that this untimely note does not detract from your enjoyment of Christmas. Thanks for your work here!

Best wishes for 2015 – Fayenatic London 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the omission. I see you've already taken care of it; thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

George Gracie

You made a statement here about recreation, relisting, and putting up an AFD. . I have a userfied article https://en.wikipedia.org/User:CrazyAces489/Jorge_Gracie, and would like to move it do that. Can you please help? Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @CrazyAces489:. The comment of mine to which you refer was just one opinion in a discussion which was ultimately closed by @Sandstein:. The decision at that time was that if further improvements were made to the draft, it could be re-evalutated. But, the last change I see made to your draft was on December 12, so there has not apparently been any improvement. My suggestion would be to read about what we consider to be reliable sources, locate some of those, and add them to the draft. Once you've done that, Sandstein would be the best person to evaluate if it's improved enough to be worth another AfD run. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Assyrian propaganda on Misplaced Pages

Is this the way how you handle problems on Misplaced Pages by simply closing the case without finding a compromise? What happens, if I put Aramean continuity related topics to the "Assyrian people" article and everything will be deleted or distorted by Assyrian fascists again, because they think they are the owner of this article? They even have a WikiProject called Assyria and don't care about neutrality and support Assyrianism. We are fed up that all our contributions on Wikpedia even with references are getting removed without a valid reason. Are you there to check it and undo it? This is why I was in favour for a neutral common page called Assyrian/Syriac people, Syriac people or whatever focused only on our Christian heritage, where we all agree on. What's wrong with the idea to create articles within a common page to express each groups views? The current Assyrian people article mixed up with Assyrian plus Aramean topics would led to edit wars again.

Read this Link and see how Assyrian fascists from all over the world try to Assyrianize everything on Misplaced Pages: http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.95;wap2 --Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well written @Suryoyo124:, i also got one of them to admit that it was propaganda, on the Syriac People talk page.

@RoySmith: The vote was closed on the christmas break and Suryoyo124 just edited my User Talk saying it was closed and he could not vote:https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sr_76 the idea that you would dismiss the votes as sock puppets or people "deeply involved in the content debate" is unfair, because when i first enquired about this we were asked to debate this on the talk page.

you started by saying: 'There is obviously a politically-driven content dispute going on here', that is what i have been saying all along. Which is why I wanted the redirection lifted because you will never clean up the "Assyrian People" page because of the politically driven views on that page. Every thing is immediately deleted that is not Assyrian propaganda.

then you write "there is strong consensus to let the AfD result stand", where? 2 out of the 3 people that voted were also involved in the debate, but you did not dismiss their votes as "deeply involved in the content debate". Sr 76 (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year RoySmith!

RoySmith,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. NorthAmerica 01:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Plowback retained earnings DRV closure

Your recent closure of the Plowback retained earnings deletion review discussion appears to be based solely on a headcount as despite an extensive debate that took place there, it contains no closing rationale; as such, the closure was inappropriate and I'd like to request that it be undone.

If I am wrong, and the closure was performed appropriately, i.e. based on the validity of the arguments presented during the debate, I'd like to instead request that you explain how you reached the conclusion that the outcome of the discussion was to endorse. Writing the explanation, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and that consensus is not to be confused with the result of a vote. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There really wasn't any need to do a deep analysis here. Other than you, it was unanimous to endorse. What I'm not understanding is why you are devoting so much effort to such a trivial issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of improper, or arguably proper but insufficiently explained, closures is not trivial. It's pivotal to the proper functioning of a collaborative project such as Misplaced Pages that whenever a discussion is formally closed, a reasonably detailed rationale be provided, allowing everyone involved to move on.

As per WP:Consensus#Determining_consensus, "onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy." Note the use of the words "quality" and "arguments" and the absence of the words "quantity," "ratio," and "votes." As I am sure you'll agree, this is the only feasible way of determining the outcome of a debate, especially one that takes place online. I'll have to insist that you provide a closing rationale if you intend not to reopen the discussion; please make sure that the rationale is compatible with the WP:CONSENSUS policy and focuses on the quality of the arguments presented "as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy" rather than the quantity of votes in favor/against endorsing/overturning the decision under review.

As a loosely related side note, which constitutes only a personal observation of mine that I believe may be of some interest to you, if you look at the RfD discussion whose closure was under review, you'll notice that three out of its four participants were in favor of deleting the redirect; if we were to analyze that closure through the prism of your above reasoning, we'd inevitably reach the conclusion that the "no consensus" closure was erroneous as it was "unanimously" agreed upon that the redirect should be deleted, with only one person opposing that outcome. The discrepancy between the two closures exemplifies what happens when discussions are closed in a manner incompatible with either the letter or the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS; in one case, a single WP:ITSUSEFUL vote was deemed sufficient to break a very strong consensus based on multiple policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, whereas in the other, the fact that only one person voiced an opinion contrary to that of the majority was deemed sufficient to have all of that single person's arguments summarily discarded solely because of their common origin. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I just re-read the DRV. I'm sorry, but this really looks like you're wiki-lawyering an extremely minor point, for no logical reason that I can discern. I decline to reopen the review or to update my closing statement. I think you need to move on to something else -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding one of your recent closures. The thread is WP:AN#Plowback retained earnings DRV closure review request. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirby Delauter

Roy, I think you made a mistake on this close. Every single person who commented on the draft (5 folks I believe) felt it should be put into mainspace and no one objected. In any case, is your close to be read that the draft is not acceptable (and could be speedied as a recreation) or is it legit to put it into article space and expect to have an actual AfD (if anyone is wanting to delete it)? Did you read the draft? It clearly meets the letter of WP:N and no one so far has felt it has a BLP issue (1E or otherwise). Hobit (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion. To answer your question, though, I looked briefly at the draft but did not read it in detail. My role here is not to evaluate the article or the draft, but to summarize the discussion. I could see an argument being made that there really wasn't any consensus at all, but a no consensus finding would have the same ultimate result, so it hardly seems worth agonizing over the distinction. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure there was a consensus for salting? Your distillation doesn't read like that. The only person possibly favouring the salting aspect was Cryptic whose comment was too cryptic for me! After Cunard produced his draft the only "endorse" also went on and specifically said a new draft should be allowed. And even Sarek, who continued arguing for deletion, seemed to agree some aspects were involved where discussion was appropriate. Maybe look at the draft carefully and see if you are sure there are policy-based reasons for not allowing it to be discussed? People's reaction to the draft is surely a part of the DRV discussion for the closer to consider? Thincat (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thincat: My point was that protection from creation in this case (as in many others) merely encourages people to create the article somewhere else, say at Kirby Q. Delauter, where it would go unnoticed. If protection had to be used, creating a redirect to another article and protecting the redirect instead would concentrate the drive-by edits somewhere we'd be able to see and, if necessary, remove them. —Cryptic 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly agree that is sensible to avoid recreation under a variety of different titles. Thincat (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a single person claimed the draft wasn't acceptable once it was produced. At a minimum I'd say that means we should have a discussion to see if anyone does object to the draft. It seems the wrong way forward to not allow something that 5 people supported and no one objected to. Hobit (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I think I made the right call. However, if you feel that I didn't, I won't be offended if you ask for a review of my close somewhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a first step might be to go to DRV with a request that the draft be allowed to be moved to main space. I wonder how Cunard feels about that? A request might, I suppose, be closed down as a disruptive nomination. I am also pinging Floquenbeam who may presumably think the draft should be speedy deleted (at any rate as soon as it has been moved) and WilyD who opened the DRV. Should I be pinging everyone else? Regardless of the merits of this particular topic there is a policy question as to what extent BLP1E should become a speedy deletion criterion. I suppose WT:CSD is the best place for that. Maybe not to have both discussions at once. Thoughts? Thincat (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking for convenience: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter. Thincat (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Roy, I understand you feel you made the right call, but I am a bit frustrated that you aren't explaining your reasoning behind not allowing the restoration of a draft that everyone who commented on (5 people I think) was comfortable with. Could you please address that particular issue? It's going to be relevant to whatever the next discussion is. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer most of those questions, other than to agree that if you do continue this somewhere, then pinging all the DRV participants would indeed be a good idea. I also agree that starting two parallel discussions at the same time would not be the best plan. Pick a forum and discuss it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As the DRV closer, you must be able to answer Hobit's question if you're concluding that the DRV prohibits the draft from being moved to mainspace. Otherwise, you should say that your DRV close does not have that prohibition since you are unable to explain that part. How can your DRV close be reviewed without your answering Hobit's question? Reviewers will not know your rationale for maintaining salting. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly. The answer to Hobit's question is that as I read through all the comments, it was my estimation that most people felt that not only was the speedy deletion the right thing to do, but so was salting the title. I did not see anything in the comments after the new draft was introduced which convinced me that the consensus changed. Really, that's as much as I'm going to say on this. I understand you do not agree with my close. That's OK. You probably won't find my answer to Hobit's question satisfying, but that's OK as well. If you want to pursue this further, go start a discussion somewhere asking to overturn my close. I'm OK with that too. And, no, I don't know where the best place for that discussion is, nor am I going to get involved in it. If the result of that discussion is that my close gets overturned, I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is getting dragged into a long drawn-out argument about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion and feel very strongly that the draft should be restored. It was a well written article and met all the standards for inclusion. Next time, I'll be more emphatic in my comments. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Where for review

Hi folks, I think the two places to go for a review are DRV and AN. There is a history of both happening. I think our goal should be to get as many uninvolved people to look at this and see if they agree with the close, so I'd argue AN is the better place. I'd say a link to that discussion at CSD's talk page and the DRV in question would be reasonable. Anyone have a plan they like better? Hobit (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:AN sounds good to me since it will have more uninvolved people.

  I agree with Thincat and Hobit that Roy's DRV close did not discuss why consensus was against restoring the draft that at least five editors reviewed and were comfortable with and no one objected to. The decision to endorse Floquenbeam's speedy deletion is within discretion and reasonable but the decision to maintain salting and bar the draft's creation has no basis in the discussion.

  I agree with Thincat that "A request might, I suppose, be closed down as a disruptive nomination". RoySmith, the best way to resolve this is for you to open an WP:AN post seeking review of whether the draft can be moved to mainspace. Would you consider doing that? Cunard (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. No, sorry. I've already stated that I have no objection to further review, but this is your battle, not mine. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Weight of Chains 2

Deletion review for The Weight of Chains 2

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Weight of Chains 2. 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. UrbanVillager (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just instructed at the Administrator Incidents page to discuss the matter with you first, before opening a deletion review. I apologize. What are your thoughts on the matter? If you agree with reinstating the article with the expanded content and reliable sources, should I delete the review? Either way, I'm a bit confused how this works, so please let me know. All the best, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

HI. Deletion Review is a formal process that's really only needed when the proposed action requires an administrator to implement (i.e. deleting or undeleting an article), or when somebody wants to protest how a AfD discussion was closed. In a case like this, the redirected title isn't protected, so any editor has the ability to un-do the redirection (as you discovered). But, as you also discovered, people may not agree with your action. So, the best thing to do would be to start a discussion at Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains, proposing to split WoC-2 back out into its own article and what you feel has changed over time which makes the AfD result no longer valid. If you get people agreeing with you, go ahead and do it. It's much the same discussion that would go on at Deletion Review, but a lot less formal. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. I know the process here can sometimes seem a bit clunky and confusing! -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)