User talk:RoySmith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:

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[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hummingbird Heartbeat. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.


Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
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.

-- 20:59, Wednesday October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar (continued)[edit]

I understand that there were arguments made against having this as an article (whether I agree with their validity or not), but not one argument was made against my suggestion of redirecting the page instead. The suggestion was simply ignored! This page should be restored and redirected (with its history intact) until someone decides to come up with a single argument against redirecting the page (again, I'm not talking about my opinion of such argumentation here, just its very existence or lack thereof). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. I just reviewed the discussion. The keep consensus is pretty clear. I agree that nobody made any arguments against redirect, but by the same token, nobody else supported it either. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Consensus must be constrained by policy.  Without reviewing the sources, the consensus here is that the topic is not wp:notable, not that the topic should be deleted.  The nomination states that this is part of another topic within the encyclopedia, which means that WP:BEFORE C1 is being challenged without good cause.  The "correct" result here would have been a speedy keep WP:NPASR before anyone else had posted.  The "speedy keep" !vote itself suggests that this is not a true "speedy keep", but a "strong keep", which is the same as a "keep".  It is important to note that there were no objections based on content policy, so the quick fix is to restore the edit history underneath the existing redirect.  IMO, doing so moots any further procedural challenges.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This is getting a bit silly. All I did was close what looked like a pretty straight-forward AfD. I'm really not into wiki-lawyering, and I'm certainly not going to answer questions about why I didn't perform some hypothetical action. This seems like a terrible amount of effort being expended by multiple editors over a trivial question like whether this should get a redirect or not. I've moved on, and I suggest everybody else does too. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBeam[edit]

I don't much care about this article one way or the other, but I am peeved that you overrode my decision to relist the debate. AfD only works if we don't all run around reverting each other's decisions. Your rationale that the user did not give "enough specificity to evaluate" the book sources is particularly brainless. I found them easily enough by clicking on the "book" link in the template provided for that purpose. All the sources noted by James are in the first page of results. So essentially, you deleted the article because the user did not give you a convenient hyperlink. In any case, it is for the community to evaluate the sources, not the closer, which was the whole reason for relisting the debate in the first place. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your close. SpinningSpark 08:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry, I didn't notice that the last relist was recent. My bad. No need to get peeved, it was unintentional. I'm in a rush right now, but sure, I have no problem with unclosing it. I'll try to find time to do that today, or feel free to do it yourself if I don't get to it quickly enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, "I made a mistake and will fix it" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I withdraw my peeve. SpinningSpark 18:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, assuming I got all the technical parts right, I backed out my close. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. A search for ebeam + whiteboard produces the four results I mentioned immediately and plenty of others. Links for them are: [1] (continues on page 66) [2] [3] [4]. Are you prepared to re-open this? Does it need to be taken to DRV? James500 (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello again RoySmith: I'm presently considering another run for adminship, per User:Stalwart111's recent suggestion for me to have a new RfA. Since you said on my talk page back in March 2014 that you'd be receptive to providing an RfA nomination, notifying you about the present discussion occurring here on my talk page. Please feel free to post any comments on my talk page there, if you're interested in doing so. NorthAmerica1000 13:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, RoySmith. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 10:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica1000 10:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)