User talk:RoySmith

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 Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia 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.

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

-- 00:24, Friday, August 30, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Peavey electronics eorporation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peavey electronics eorporation. Since you had some involvement with the Peavey electronics eorporation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Restoring State of the Future?

Somebody contacted me, and apparently also @Sphilbrick:, by email this morning, requesting that I restore State of the Future. In general, such conversations are better on-wiki. If it was you, please ping me here so we can discuss it. Thanks -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I see this goes with the thread at User_talk:Sphilbrick#Restoration_of_the_deleted_article. I'll respond there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4#Convoy of Hope

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4#Convoy of Hope, Nick-D (talk · contribs) and Stifle (talk · contribs) supported deletion, while Thincat (talk · contribs), Stalwart111 (talk · contribs), FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs), and I believed the draft could be used if an established editor (I) took responsibility for it.

Your closing statement "It's possible that the topic is OK, but not this draft, by this editor. Based on that, I'm going to let the salting stand" does not reflect the consensus in the discussion. Please either unsalt the article or strike that portion of your close so an admin at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection can unsalt it. This will allow me to move BeenAroundAWhile (talk · contribs)'s draft User:BeenAroundAWhile/Sandbox4 to Convoy of Hope. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roy, your reading certainly reflects initial consensus - not sure that you saw that it was the same editors who later came back and agreed on a way forward, not a different group. Perhaps a couple of us should have struck our initial bolded !votes but we didn't actually change our views (per see), we just agreed on alternate (compromise) path. Any chance you'd be willing to remove protection on that basis? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have amending my closing statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that actually helps much. Most of those who advocated for retention of protection then formally or informally change their view to support the compromise solution outlined by Cunard. Most of the support for protection was based on BAAW's original comment, which was later clarified and (mostly) accepted. At least two of those who participated are admins but it seems overly bureaucratic to seek their help to overturn something you accept you might have "erred" in closing. Do we really need this at WP:AN to find an uninvolved admin? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought no consensus was OK (I would have entirely disregarded the nominator's opinion as being too conflicted). There is always a problem with how to treat earlier unchanged !votes when there is a radical change during a discussion. Also, in this case, as recently, we are left wondering about the salting and what DRV thought about it, if it was a matter for DRV at all. I satisfied myself that Convoy of Hope is rather definitely notable (though I'd never heard of it) so in many ways we "should" have an article but the problem is how to start. I was willing to support Cunard's offer. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to fully separate my clerical task of summarizing the discussion from my own feelings. I think it would be useful to have an uninvolved admin make the final decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to mainspace after the article was unsalted by HJ Mitchell. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello RoySmith,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I was never able to take advantage of this. It's been a while, so I've gotten some of the details, but I went to their website, attempted to follow the instructions I was given to set up an account, and never managed to activate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Clonazolam, Flubromazolam, Deschloroetizolam

Can you restore the full history and talk page those pages, but maintain redirect? I think these are eventually going to find articles given our history with chemicals, preserving history helps if someone decides to work on it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

May I request you for an RfC close?

May I request you for an RfC close? I want to make sure this is not considered canvassing or policy violation. I see you have excellent judgment in terms of determining what passes GNG without inherent bias, could you take a look at a specific subject? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, what's the discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy, Just a sidenote, I believe BusterD assessed the situation that Coffee had opened this as a RfC acting in the capacity of an AfD, so there question becomes whether there was ever consensus to delete the subject. If the outcome does favor me, I still have a few more updates regarding title changes to fix. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a lot of material to wade through. I'm afraid I don't have the spare cycles right now to take on something which requires that large a time commitment, so I'm going to have to pass on this one. My apologies for saying yes before I knew what I was getting into. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem! :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Valoem (talk · contribs), I have listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nim DRV

In closing this as no consensus, can you please strike the clearly false claim that Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified) from the closing remarks? Msnicki (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your thinking, please? I can appreciate that most of those !voting in the DRV expressed no opinion either way on whether the claim was true, but the discussion that did address the point clearly demonstrated it's not true. Msnicki (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's my job as a debate closer to summarize what other people said. My summary is that people couldn't agree. What you're asking me to do is change that to, people couldn't agree, but I'm going to cherry-pick this one item and overturn it anyway. I can't do that, sorry. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm asking for one claim to be struck, leaving the no consensus endorsed. If indeed everyone agreed there were four sources that contributed to nobility, it should have been closed keep. The closing admin has made a misstatement of fact that's independent of calling the outcome. The proof is there that he was wrong.

The reason this matters is because it seems likely there will be a new AfD in a few months as recommended by several participants in the DRV. At that point, it seems reasonable that many editors may briefly review the record of previous AfDs. This one was long and contentious and many may never read beyond the headlines, the closing admin's claim that everyone agreed there were four sources contributing to notability. That biases the next discussion.

Again, to be clear, I am not questioning your decision to call this as no consensus for overturning the no consensus at AfD. I am asking you to concede that that one statement in the close was discussed and clearly demonstrated to be false, both logically and factually. The only one who even tried to argue (completely illogically) that the claim was true was the admin who'd made it. The claim found no other support whatsoever and it also directly challenged by one other editor. I'm asking you to agree that striking this claim, exactly as requested and discussed in the DRV, is a fair part of the outcome. Msnicki (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the WP:STICK and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A fine example of WP:ADMINACCT, showing deep commitment to discussing your decisions. Thank you for your clarity. Msnicki (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)