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

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

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.

DRV

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.

-- 17:51, Sunday, August 4, 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

The Weight of Chains 2

Racism

When DGG, a sitting Arbitrator, accuses me of racism, my response was justified. Tarc (talk)

Deletion review for Language Creation Society

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Language Creation Society. 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. Sai ¿?✍ 10:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion reasons

Hi Roy. I'm not going to dispute your close, if that's how you read the consensus, then that's fine - thanks for taking the time to do so. You did mention though that you found the statement I do not dispute the notability of the topic, but I do dispute the fact it needs its own article on Wikipedia puzzling. Well, that's fairly simple. I do not see how this topic can possibly be written from a neutral point of view, every part of it from the title to the structure is built to create a bias. Every part of the uprising may be notable, but to focus on one part in isolation will cause an irreparable POV fork. I'm surprised as someone who's experienced on Wikipedia, you don't see that as a plausible deletion reason. There are others clear deletion reasons which are aside from notability, from copyright violations to BLP violations - admittedly this doesn't fall under those, but notability is definitely not the be all and end all, just the most common reason for deletion. Worm^TT(talk) 19:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain. I've struck that comment; it really wasn't necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have mentioned that! I hope you are less puzzled by the comment in any case. Worm^TT(talk) 07:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm YourAuntEggma. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of The Sword of Truth characters, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. YourAuntEggma (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to message regarding review

It was an automated edit sent because I unreviewed your page. The Wikipedia:New Pages Patrol allows users to patrol pages for errors. After reviewing a page, the page is marked as reviewed so that others patrolling don't re-review it. However, I had to leave and didn't get the time to review the page and thus marked it as unreviewed. It's nothing bad, I just ran out of time. (The New Page Patrol is meant to patrol new pages, and I didn't realise until now that your page was not new. I accidentally clicked "oldest" on Special:New Pages.) (YourAuntEggma (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Taylor Lianne Chandler DRV

Taylor Lianne Chandler needs to be re-deleted to complete your close of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Taylor Lianne Chandler (closed). Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me. Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

Thanks for the civil, non-accusatory close regarding list of Clinton controversies. I thought that the WP:LISTN argument was very strong in view of the discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources, but evidently that view did not prevail.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further praise for the thoughtful and well-written close on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_controversies
Yellowdesk (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the encouraging words. I've always found closing list AfDs more difficult than for articles. For articles, the inclusion criteria seem much more bright-line (either we have sources or we don't). For lists, it's more of a judgement call on the part of the AfD participants, which means it's more difficult for me to assess which arguments should carry the most weight. Glad I did OK in this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect and then Stop Vandalizing My Talk Page

I was going to politely ask you to stop vandalizing my talk page, but it appears to be protected. As my page 1) formed a record of why I left Wikipedia, 2) formed a record of an overt violation of Wikipedia's spirit and procedures, and 3) preserved said railroading in an attempt to illegitimately squelch a minority viewpoint, it meets all relevant criteria for inclusion in a talk page and meets no relevant criteria for removal. Please explain yourself.

I'd really rather not have to appeal this matter to adjudication. And I really didn't think I'd have to start taking this to the media. Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]