Open main menu


Help fixing draftEdit

I added some more sources and references to my article. In your opinion do you think it is qualified to be a Wikipedia article.

Free Republic of Verdis deletionEdit

Us, the citizens did not vote for this to be deleted. We were against it being deleted.

Tech News: 2019-33Edit

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing citationsEdit

Good day you have removed my citation of Mikko phylogeny archive on the Elopiformes page, I have no problem with that as it has been stated 'Mikko phylogeny archive' is not an authoritative or credible source. What I have a problem with is your lack of thoroughness and carelessness because you did remove two other peer reviewed, authoritative and credible sources in that deletion. Those citations were Fishes of the World a book and Family-group names of fossil fishes a paper. This was done not only the Elopiformes page but numerous other pages where I cited those publications. Can you please clarify and or suggest a permanent fix for removing those two other citations but leaving the edits to which they are based on. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Videsh, I see what happened. Those entries were removed as part of a semi-automated cleanup which was run as part of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. Unfortunately, it looks like I wasn't as careful as I should have been, and removed too much. What should have happened was to just unlink "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive", without removing the whole entry. I've gone ahead and fixed the problem at Elopiformes. If you see any others, please feel free to restore them, or let me know the page titles, and I'll fix them myself. My apologies for the error. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith, thanks very much for understanding. But it was a lot of pages I cited Mikko Haaramo, and your semi-automatic cleanup did deletions to some but not all those cited pages. So it is gonna take a lot of time manually to go through those pages individually to check. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC) the×

Let me work on this a bit. I think I see a way to fix this without having to look at each one manually. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've made a little progress. It looks like this is the set of pages I potentially broke. At least that should narrow down what we need to verify. Take a look at the list and tell me if this looks correct. If so, then I'll start working on a good way to fix things. Again, my apologies for the breakage. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Videsh Ramsahai: the easy cases will be when this is still the last edit to the page. In those cases, I'll just be able to revert my edit. If there's been additional edits since then, it'll require some manual work, but leave that to me, just take a look at the list and tell me if you think I've found the right pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. Turkmenidae diff
  2. Analectis diff
  3. Poduromorpha diff
  4. Symphypleona diff
  5. Entomobryoidea diff
  6. Jeholodentidae diff
  7. Coniopterygidae diff
  8. Dilaridae diff
  9. Nevrorthidae diff
  10. Ichthyodectidae diff
  11. Cooyoo diff
  12. Dinichthyloidea diff
  13. Coccosteina diff
  14. Brachythoraci diff
  15. Palaeonisciformes diff
  16. Edestus diff
  17. Ninjemys diff
  18. Aglaspidida diff
  19. Ptyctodontida diff
  20. Corydalidae diff
  21. Titanichthys diff
  22. Fishfly diff
  23. Trionychia diff
  24. Procolophonomorpha diff
  25. Meiolania diff
  26. Procolophonia diff
  27. Trematosauria diff
  28. Trematosauroidea diff
  29. Bothriolepis diff
  30. Docodonta diff
  31. Nepomorpha diff
  32. Arthrodira diff
  33. Lepidaspis diff
  34. Snakefly diff
  35. Megaloptera diff
  36. Chrysopidae diff
  37. Coelacanthidae diff
  38. Beardfish diff
  39. Diapsid diff
  40. Arowana diff
  41. Elopiformes diff
  42. Hiodontiformes diff
  43. Opisthocomidae diff
  44. Semionotiformes diff
  45. Amiiformes diff
  46. Pangolin diff
  47. Esociformes diff
  48. Percopsiformes diff
  49. Palaeanodonta diff
  50. Sicyophorus diff
  51. Thoracopteridae diff
  52. Peltopleuridae diff
  53. Peltopleuriformes diff
  54. Ctenothrissiformes diff
  55. Crossognathiformes diff
  56. Tarrasiiformes diff
  57. Ptycholepiformes diff
  58. Pholidopleuriformes diff
  59. Perleidiformes diff
  60. Saurichthyiformes diff
  61. Atractosteus diff
  62. Metasuchia diff
  63. Capitosauria diff
  64. Brachyopomorpha diff
  65. Archaeopriapulida diff
  66. Ancalagon (animal) diff
  67. Ascalaphinae diff
  68. Pholidosauridae diff
  69. Mastodonsauroidea diff
  70. Neelipleona diff
  71. Piveteauia diff
  72. Whiteia diff
  73. Pachycormiformes diff
RoySmith, this looks about right, as you said there are some older ones I think. I will start to change some of them. But to clarify, am I removing the brackets from "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" so as not to link to that wikipage, or am I removing the "Mikko's Phylogeny Archive" citation altogether.Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to say what the right thing is. For sure, you want to remove the brackets from Mikko's Phylogeny Archive, to keep it from being a redlink. Beyond that, you're the subject matter expert, so it's really up to your best judgement. If leaving the citation in still makes sense without the link, then by all means, leave it in. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dorothy OlsenEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Dorothy Olsen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

about Draft:The Kentucky HousewifeEdit

Sorry I didn't see this sooner - I don't do this very often or log in often - I'm responding to these comments copy/pasted below. . . . (I'm new at this and probably am answering this the wrong way - please excuse). I originally wrote one entry on Lettice Bryan but a rewiewer said that two entries were probably needed. So I created the 2nd entry on The Kentucky Housewife. Please publish one or the other or both because this cookbook is a significant contribution by a woman. Women are often overlooked in history because their contributions are political history.-- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: My guidelines for author vs. book for an author of a single book: 1.The only reason for two articles is if the author is well-known for other than the book, and the book is also quite important and might well be known independently. (This is most likely to be the case for people writing on current affairs; it will not be the case when the book isa memoir or autobiography)) 2.For an author who has published a single significant book and is unlikely to publish more (usually but not always because of no longer being alive) , I think the article should be on the book. More people are likely to be aware of it. A(a cookbookl like this is a good example--the primary interest is because people are innerested in cookbooks) 3.For a living author who will probably publish more if the book is a success (and if it isn't there probably shouldn't be a WP article) 4.The reasons for not having 2 articles is that the contents would mainly duplicate, and whichever the reader is interested in, they will be best served by having the information together. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: @DGG and Jimfbleak: I've cleared what looks like the remaining copyright violations. This is probably ready to go back into mainspace, but see also my comments at Draft:The Kentucky Housewife regarding whether we need one or two articles. Would appreciate your opinions on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Iluvwipdia: Hi, and thanks for your note. I've moved it to my talk page, which is where questions like this should go. I feel your frustration about conflicting reviews. That is unfortunately, a part of wikipedia; we're all moving in the same general direction, but different editors have somewhat different ideas of exactly how things should go. Looking at what DGG and Jimfbleak have written, and my own opinion, I think what you need to do at this point is twofold. 1) Go over Draft:The Kentucky Housewife and eliminate the copyright violations. There are some things where editors have room to disagree (i.e. whether to have one or two articles to cover this topic). Copyright violations, however, are what we call a bright line rule; this needs to get fixed before the article can go into mainspace. 2) Merge the material from Draft:Lettice Bryan into Draft:The Kentucky Housewife, and then submit the later for review. I'm watching that page, so I'll see the review request and act on it quickly. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay - I think I fixed everything. I've clicked the "resubmit" button but not sure if anything is happening. Thanks for your help and clarifications. Iluvwipdia (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll respond on the draft itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I give up. I think the content of the article is important, and I don't mind trying another re-write, but I can't figure out the complicated wikipedia editorial system in the limited free time I have to actually do it. A frankly, in academic texts, what you describe would not present a copyright issue since the material is clearly cited. When I go to the draft page, the text has disappeared and I don't have hours to read all the various instructions on various sites to figure out how to re-do it. I'll have to just stick to my paying job. Iluvwipdia (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Aboug Draft:Reiki SymbolsEdit

Hi Roysmith, thank you for your comments on my new article. I am aware that there is an article called 'Reiki', it talks about what it is and its background specifically, so I still think my article is different since I talk about the symbols of Reiki which are a different topic and also really important that is why I did not want to blend it with the Reiki article. I am going to check the URL you told me, but can I still make it a new article? I worked really hard on it and I would still like to make it a new article since that is how I think it should be, please let me know asap.

Thank you in advance. JCAGH (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:Content forking. Also, as you read Reiki, you'll notice that state up front that it is a WP:FRINGE topic, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Your article presents this as if it's valid medicine. That's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-34Edit

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Outfoxedkc/sandbox (Chesley Brown International)Edit

I am new to Wikipedia, so perhaps this is the wrong vehicle to use. However, I recently submitted an article about a company I have been researching ( who were active nationally during the OKC and Olympic Park bombings between 1995-96. My article was deleted, due to "advertising". I have reviewed the the description of "advertising" on the Wikipedia description, and I do not believe this article goes against the spirit of the rules. I was hoping you could explain further the reason for deletion so that my submissions may be improved in the future.

Additionally I would like to understand why the article was DELETED instead of sent back for edits? It seems I don't have a great handle on the process, but in general, when articles are submitted to other platforms, an editor reviews and requests edits, rather than deleting the whole thing all together.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outfoxedkc (talkcontribs) 16:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the article, I'm assuming this is a paid commission to write an article about the company. I see this is your first contribution to wikipedia. May I suggest that you read WP:YFA to understand what we're about, WP:COI to learn about our conflict of interest policies, and WP:NCORP to understand what we're looking for in the way of coverage for companies. You might also want to look at WP:Requested articles to get some ideas for topics to write about. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing those links. Thank you for clarifying as well -- I can understand that perception. I am not, however, a representative of the company, nor do I perform any work on their behalf. I am a security and technology researcher in the midwest. Its been frustrating that I have to use 10+ year old archive links as reference whenever I write about these guys. During this last round of work I noticed that many of the links I've used historically are getting so old they're no longer being indexed online, which was my motivation for posting this. I have read through the links your shared, and aside from removing a minor source, I'm still not sure what specifically needs to be fixed here. Outfoxedkc (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what a security and technology researcher does, but I assume you run some sort of consulting service, where you advise your clients on which security firms to hire. Your interest in having a wikipedia article about this company seems to be to provide a ready reference for you to use as part of that consulting business. That's a conflict of interest. I'm hesitant to answer your question about "what specifically needs to be fixed", because there is no good answer. Anything specific that I point out might lead you to believe that if you just fixed those things, the article would become acceptable, and that's not the case. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Was the reason for deletion because of an assumed Conflict of Interest? I do not sell any services, I am a student. I don't even work in the security industry -- my research is part of my thesis. It seems striking that one of the largest security companies in North America isn't listed anywhere on Wikipedia. I thought the whole mission of Wikipedia was to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." If the only reason for deleting the article is because its been assumed i have a conflict of interest, how may I remediate that perception? If that's not the issue, then I'd be happy to make any updates to the article that are necessary. Please understand, I am new to the platform and I'm doing the best I can to jump through the right hoops, but a little guidance would be most appreciated.

Outfoxedkc (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem determined to argue about this, so I've undeleted the page and listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 20 where other editors and admins can review my action. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies if I've come across as argumentative, that is not my intention. I'm just trying to understand where I went wrong on this and how to fix it. Thank you for pushing that out to other admins. I have made updates to the article in order to make it more neutral, as you requested. I'm just not sure how to fix the perceived conflict of interest issue you've raised. Outfoxedkc (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Catahoula bulldog closeEdit

Hi, Roy - the consensus for the AfD is quite clear - there is no legitimate breed as a Catahoula bulldog - it is fictitious and should be redirected to the actual recognized breed Catahoula Leopard dog. The few arguments for KEEP were based on anecdotal information cited to unreliable sources, not factual verifiable information cited to RS. How on earth did you determine that AfD to be "no consensus"??

@Atsme: I think I explained all that in my close. The question is not whether this is a recognized breed, but whether being a recognized breed is a requirement for having an article. And, about that, there was no agreement. My job as closer is to summarize the thoughts of the editors who participated in the discussion. If they didn't come to any agreement, then there's no option other than to close the discussion as No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I just noticed that it was you who listed this at WP:AN/RFC, with the request, Need an admin to review and close. So, I guess what you really meant was, Need an admin who agrees with me to review and close. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did request an admin closure and shame on you for that hurtful and unwarranted comment. The dog topic is a problem topic area because of the misunderstandings about what constitutes a RS and what WP:V actually means when a source is questionable. As you probably noticed, one of of the Keep ivoters was a sock, the other was blocked for 30+ hrs for disruption and aspersions, and I was forced to file at ANI because of the name calling, aspersions, misinformation and misunderstandings involving advocates and socks. And now you've gone and said what you said. 😢 Perhaps I'm wasting my time here, but I'm an eternal optimist, so I'm asking that you please look at the Redirect/Delete votes again before I request a review. The AfD was more about the fact that the - ...cited sources are neither reliable nor do they establish notability. The Catahoula bulldog is a fictitious breed - no question there - but the reason for my nominating the article for AfD is that (a) there are no RS to satisfy GNG requirements, and (b) the included material is noncompliant with WP:V and WP:OR. The KEEP arguments do not establish notability or verifiability because there are no RS being cited - you should have seen that when you reviewed the Redirect/delete comments. The book, The Bully Breeds, is as close as the citations got to a RS but it still did not make the cut - that source is actually a questionable source based on context and does not establish notability. The book is about 6 Bulldog breeds but the Catahoula bulldog is not one of the 6. It barely got passing mention in a short 2 paragraphs which included the following info (pg 78): ...which as the name implies originate from crosses between Bulldogs (in this case American Bulldogs) and (Louisiana) Catahoula Leopard Dogs. It goes on to describe a little more anecdotal information, all of which is unverifiable. The author did not cite any RS or notable breed registries for verification or reliable/verifiable corroboration that the dog even exists. It might have been crossed to a Labrador Retriever for all we know. The material is neither encyclopedic nor verifiable as it is derived from anecdotal information - and V is one of our core content policies. Worse yet, the author is not a breed expert - he is ...a professional acoustical engineer specializing in architectural and environmental acoustics, product development, and building material research. I searched high and low for verifiable information in RS, and there are none. Further, Kennel Club Books has not been in business since 2012 - the article also needs to be updated. Please go back and re-read the many Redirect and/or Delete iVotes - some of which are by reputable WP:WikiProject Dog members who are quite knowledgeable about breeds, breed types, dog types, etc. Their arguments are very strong. I will await your reply but please ping me. Atsme Talk 📧 17:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: Please ask for a review. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 Y Done. Atsme Talk 📧 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Tomi Thomas AfDEdit

Hi, RoySmith, I disagree with you closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomi Thomas. Indeed there were flurry of "Keeps" but with zero or faulty policy reason to keep. I've thoroughly explained why the article is based on unreliable sources completely and no one reliably disputed that. I am baffled with your closure as just "Keep" and I hope, you'll reread it and decide to either delete or reopen it. Thanks – Ammarpad (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The biggest point of contention seemed to be whether Pulse Nigeria was a WP:RS. You obviously feel they are not. Other editors felt they are. Judging the reliability of sources is part of what editors at AfD are supposed to do. Given the number of people who felt this should be kept, it would take really strong arguments to convince me otherwise, and I'm just not seeing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
But that was not the only reason, and they only disagree, no one explained why it's not (unreliable). Straight "Keep" means it's obvious to even a passing observer that the discussion "found consensus" for keep. I did not see that. So if you wouldn't mind I'll bring this to DRV. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 23, and this is your pro-forma notification. —Cryptic 09:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I was about to do that. Thank you for beating me to it. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 13:28:53, 23 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Marina VashchenkoEdit

Dear RoySmith,

Thank you for reviewing the article!

I have checked the WP:NCORP and would like to ask for your assistance to identify things that can help with my article.

I’d like to mention a few things that, in my opinion, show the notability of the modules described in the article:

1. Based on the statistics on GitHub, the widgets are used by 39,038 people and starred by 4,838:

2. The specifics of usage has been widely discussed on Stackoverflow:

3. I posted a couple of articles about implementing ngx-bootstrap by third-party people:

4. The creators of ngx-bootstrap have been invited by ngHouston for a public speech regarding the usage of modules with the latest Angular renderer:

5. The widgets are published on (a highly used source of JavaScript development tools)

6. Ngx-bootstrap is open-source software so the possibility of receiving income is minimal. The aim of mentioning already popular widgets in Wikipedia is having them described in additional authoritative source.

Having checked similar articles from the Category:Free software programmed in JavaScript like and considering the preceding facts, the article matches the “has been noticed by people outside of the organization” criteria from

In order for the article not to look like an ad, I suggest the following:

Removing the developer of the widgets (Valor Software) from the article body. Instead of link as a website in the infobox, place link to the GitHub repository.

Do you think this will help?

Thank you,

Marina Vashchenko Marina Vashchenko (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I see the only things you've written so far are articles about Valor and its products. I assume you have some connection to the company. Please read WP:COI and make the appropriate disclosures on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Joe ZenasEdit

I am updating Joe Zenas page and it was deleted. Could you advise why it was deleted, so I can update the content accordingly? Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKellam910 (talkcontribs) 18:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't figure out what page you're talking about. Can you provide a link, please? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Zenas; it's all explained there. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "RoySmith".