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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hello Roy I wasnt sure how to contact you, U helped delete and old page draft of mine last year, A few weeks back i rewrote it and kept it to a minimal and got as much references to support it, another use suggested making singles and albums into a table which i did, I am wondering is this draft page on the list for reviewing or is it stuck in limbo as i edited the old original one, any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luca_Stricagnoli

Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your note. Your draft was missing a template that was needed to start the review process. If you go to your draft now, you should see a big blue "Submit the draft for review!" button. Just click that and you should be all set. Note that the queue for reviews is pretty long, it'll probably be a few weeks before somebody gets around to reviewing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Julio and Marisol you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Julio and Marisol you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Julio and Marisol for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Julio and Marisol you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Julio and Marisol for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend I love scary movies I was thinking since there's already a 1890s–1910s section on horror film I was wandering if you could unmerge the 1970s–1980s and make a 1970s section and 1980s section to horror film like normal even decades like most of the decades are on there it would look a lot better on the horror film article if all the decade sections look like this
1890s–1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
Poaksyeydyjsmsk (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I must have missed your first message. Yes, I can do this now if you are still able to do so. Burwell37902 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please resubmit it as a new nomination and somebody else will look at it.. To be honest, I don't see how you missed my first message on your talk page, but immediately saw the message saying it had failed. By submitting an article for review, you're asking other people to do something for you. You need to be respectful of their time. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your e-mail. If you look at the editor in question's talk page, you will see that I left an explanation and some suggestions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

test -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

try this again. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering when the restriction on the Thank U, Next album page would end. I've been meaning to add things to it and it's been restricted for a while now. I've always added information to Ariana's album pages, and have familiarized myself with Wikipedia guidelines and would never perform vandalism on it.

Thanks. Blowscalls (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that page has been the target of extensive abuse over the years, so it needs to be protected. You can make an edit request on the article's talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've added a suggestion at the talk page and have been ignored. An editor recently removed "widespread critical acclaim" and replaced "praise" with "compliments", and with no edit summary. Blowscalls (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are content issues that you need to discuss with your fellow editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since  Unlikely seems to be the most mysterious CU code out there and you pinged me on one where I returned it, I'll give you my breakdown of what the various symbols mean when I use them:

•  Confirmed - behaviour and technical details are a match. Technical details do not have to be identical, but there's enough to say they're the same person when the whole picture is considered.
•  Technically indistinguishable - exactly the same but crazy common or extremely minor difference that makes it less than sure but more than likely (think someone changing between browser versions because they have multiple laptops.)
•  Likely - One account uses Firefox when the other uses Safari and everything else lines up
•  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) - try to avoid this one, but I basically only use it in geographic regions and providers I'm familiar with. Something along the lines of "The technical matters line up, but given the specifics of what they are, there is reason to believe that there is potential for a false positive"
•  Possible - same geographic region in an area where geolocation is decent. If crappy geolocation, might be able to stretch it to same ISP, but I'd likely leave a comment saying between unlikely and likely.
•  Unlikely - same country if it is a country with really crappy geolocation, but literally nothing else matches up. The geography just makes it impossible to say unrelated.
•  Unrelated it really, truly, isn't them.

I think my style and usage is pretty similar to KrakatoaKatie's. Ponyo might be a bit different, but she and I also tend to reach similar conclusions (and she's da best.) Anyway, you tend to ask good questions as a clerk, so I thought this might be helpful for you at least in terms of interpreting what I mean :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is pretty much how I use it. Unlikely is often a geography issue. Sometimes there are browser differences, or time card discrepancies. I can't completely rule it out, but it's just, well, unlikely. I use possilikely more often than some CUs, but I'll almost never use it in India because everything's possilikely in India as a starting point. I'll also use likely if the UAs match but there's a geolocation issue that makes me not want to use tallyho. Consistency in using these is the key, and I try to give as much detail as I can, particularly if there's a behavioral issue that needs investigation. (And Ponyo really is da best.) Katie^talk 13:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that often worries me about not knowing exactly what a CU is trying to say, is that I don't know how much weight to give to my own observations. For example, if a CU also looks at timecards and notices similarities, they might work that into their "likely" evaluation. If I then notice the same similarities, my "Oh, look at that, they've all got the same schedule!" doesn't add any new information. Yet, I might say to myself, "The timecard data alone doesn't seem like enough, but in conjunction with the CU's 'likely', I'll call this a match". Oshwah tends to be chatty about details, so I like his CU reports :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni, Thanks for the breakdown, and for your comments on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditsjanuary2021. One of the frustrating things about being an SPI clerk is that different CUs have different ways of saying things so I spend a lot of time looking at CU results trying to figure out what was meant. Some CUs are very clear. Others, not so much. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]