User talk:RoySmith/Archive 3

Red links

Hi there, I left a comment regarding your removal of redlinks at Talk:TCP#Red_links. Fourohfour 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vote to delete

Hi Roy, You're welcome to your opinion and I feel that I need to offer you mine. Your comments are typical of my experience so far at Wikipedia -- rather than eductate a newbie you suggest that my user account be deleted. Do you assume I violate policy intentionally? That is not so. If the your first was to educate rather than delete or attack, I think you'd get better results and ultimately a better encyclopedia. You recommend my deletion before saying one word to me or making one concrete recommendation. I must say I have a problem with that.Dgray xplane 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. If my comments are typical of the experience you have had here so far, perhaps you want to stop and think about why you are getting such a reception. I'm more than happy to educate newbies; I might suggest that you begin by reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:NOT to gain some understanding of what is appropriate and what isn't. I didn't suggest that your account be deleted; I suggested that a specific subpage of your user page be deleted, because I believe it violates wikipedia policy, specifically Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox -- RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughts. I must admit I misread your suggestion and thought you were advocating that my account be deleted! Based on my experiences I have learned a lot. I have been asking why I am getting such reactions. I have to also say that I have also had several positive experiences of people really giving me excellent help. It's a learning process. There are a LOT of policies and to a newbie it can seem very overwhelming and hard to navigate. Every time I learn a new one I am trying to make it a habit to familiarize myself with the policies as well as the related discussion, which are often much more enlightening. My field is an emerging one and I have already thought of several articles (NOT about my company) that are worth writing and/or adding to. But I'm not going to put my toe in the water till I understand the lay of the land better. "Be bold" is not a recommendation I'm willing to take as gospel at this point. I have learned to "be wary." I'll read about the soapbox thing, and thanks to your kind response to my somewhat whiny note :)Dgray xplane 16:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, in case you haven't noticed I am a slow learner, and seem to prefer the "school of hard knocks"Dgray xplane 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your contributions to the article. Boy am I ashamed to have judged you so quickly. Please accept my apologies. On reflection I think my comments were somewhat rude and I regret the tone. I'm starting to get a sense of the magic of this community.Dgray xplane 01:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, I want to make sure you understand how the Deletion Review process you started rolling is going to play out. At some point in the next couple of days, some admin (I don't know who, other than to say it'll almost certainly be somebody who hasn't taken part in the debate and can thus act dispassionately) will come along and make a decision what to do. I can see three possible outcomes; they might decide that the original deletion of the article was correct and let that stand, they might decide to bring it back to AfD to be debated again in that forum, or they might decide to skip AfD and just restore the article. Please understand that at that point, everybody pretty much has got to go along with whatever the decision is. It may be what you were hoping for, or it may not. Either way, it'll be time to move on. You mentioned earlier that you've got some ideas for other articles you want to write. Please do! -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion nobody can act truly dispassionately -- we all bring biases to any decision. Of course it's important to try to be as dispassionate as possible. If the article is deleted, does that mean it can never be re-created? What exactly does it mean?Dgray xplane 03:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wp:csd#General_criteria, paragraph 4. But, before you do that, let me point out that my sense here is that you are not thinking "what is best for Wikipedia", but rather, "How can I use the rules to my advantage". Down this path lies madness. Eventually, if you push the issue long enough, some admin may decide that you are being disruptive and invoke WP:BLOCK#Disruption to block your ability to edit anymore. You really don't want that to happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Roy, Actually you might find this odd but in my own way I am thinking of what's best for Wikipedia. I am not afraid to advocate a position, but I want you to know that I consider myself an honest and ethical person. I have always formed my own opinion about things and yes, I can be stubborn when I believe that I am right. It's a trait that I don't apologize for.

If I AM deleted, you won't ever see me posting anonymously or forming some kind of pseudonymn or anything like that. I won't ever resort to that kind of behavior. I find anonymity is a cloud that covers many passive-aggressive behaviors.

I am who I am, publicly and for better or worse, on and off Wikipedia. You're more likely to see me posting my opinions and experiences outside Wikipedia altogether. But hey, Wikipedia can make a mistake too, right? (Joke!). Believe it or not I have the capacity to see things in perspective. The process of growing a company subjects one to many human forces, both within and without. I can roll with the punches and so far have never lost my sense of humor. The fact that any person can roll by and make a decision after so much discussion stikes me as a little strange. How does such a person get authorized? Do they self-authorize? It's just the way I am Roy, but if someone votes to delete I need to understand their rationale and agree that it's reasonable.

Honestly, I am probably to exhausted to fight any decision at this point. If this hadn't been Thanksgiving week I doubt I could have even made a case. So you don't have to worry about me (but thanks anyway). End of rant! :) Dgray xplane 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your statement, If I AM deleted, you need to start thinking about collective ownership. Nobody's talking about deleting YOU. They're talking about deleting an article. It's not even your article. It's an article which you've edited. Also, nobody's voting on anything; we're forming consensus. The job of the admin who will eventually come along and make a decision is not to count votes, but to evaluate what consensus (if any) was reached.

Actually that is what I meant to say; that is, I was referring to a possible future where my user account might deleted. I certainly hope that doesn't happen!

As I have now familiarized myself with the guidelines, I think the article pretty clearly meets the criteria of notability if you subscribe to this definition:

"An article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself."

At this point, if the article is deleted, I think it could be a fair interpretation that, at least in part, it is a form of punishment for my blundering newbie actions, as opposed to a legitimate questioning of the article. I mean, it's possible that even Wikipedians can be biased or have hidden agendas, right? My hope is that at the very least I am permitted to retain the article on my user pages, in the hope of someday getting it to a point where it can be included.

I think you'll admit that there is not a clear consensus that the article is completely without merit. If someday someone did want to initiate the process of writing an article, it would be helpful to be in a position to provide relevant history so they are not starting from scratch.

As for your question of how to become authorized to delete articles, you should read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, but please understand that it's way too early for you to be thinking about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! You're misinterpreting my question. I am not sure I would ever want that kind of power. My question is more about how such people are qualified. Supreme court judges go through a qualification process; some are extremely conservative, some are extremely liberal. Some are considered "activist judges." If the article were deleted by someone who could be deemed an "activist judge" I would probably take issue with the fact they were qualified to judge in the first place.

I am afraid I am beginning to be a bit of a bore. Really, the most important thing for me is to feel that my intentions are understood. I do actually have a reputation outside of Wikipedia too, which is also very important to me. Plus, I have a personal policy never to speak or comment anonymously -- a practice I abhor. I don't write or publish anything on the Web unless I am willing to put my real name behind it. So the fact that I feel my intentions are being misinterpreted is really the most painful thing. I really do want to thank you for your time. Cheers,Dgray xplane 17:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I concur with your opinion on the serial comma.Dgray xplane 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to let you know that I am heeding your advice and keeping my mouth shut re: the XPLANE debate.--Dgray xplane 03:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I read about the Church of Reality on digg.com a few months ago. I came looking for some information on it tonight, and found no wiki page. What's up with that? Why has it been taken down? It had some widespread publicity a while back regarding a back-and-forth they had with (I think it was the DEA?) - or some drug related U.S. agency. I would have thought that their "church" (or whatever it is), was newsworthy - regardless of how ridiculous the concept/organization/whatever they are.

ummm... why did you delete?

I stumbled upon this page: [1]. after checking, I noticed that you have continually protected this page, as if it were harmful. why? I just don't get it... I checked their website, too: [2]. I don't think there is something harmful there. please explain. Yuval (I don't have a user, but you're more then welcom to contect me via e-mail).

I find the decision questionable too, the church has a very extensive website, membership, and is registered with the IRS as a tax-exempt charity. Furthermore it has been mentioned in tapes of college discussions with Richard Dawkins. Btw Yuval get an account it's not hard. Tyciol 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wondering as well--Nealparr 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the message on your user page about the CoR quite insulting:

If you've come here to bitch at me about CoR, please do it on my user talk page. Or not. Either way, I'll ignore you.

I feel that even thought I had never previously looked at or heard of this 'religon' you should at the least explain the actions or post a link or something and not just tell people their going to be ignored. It's both silly and quite irresponsible to directly admit to ignoring user concerns. I, even a lowly coverted lurker, know that its wrong. Sorry man, i get your point, but suck it up and tell them fake religions rarely get posted on the wiki. MrMacMan 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I'll take it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now if you would only tell these people above us that the reason their 'religion' is banned is because its silly, not notable, and because the creator of the webpage tried to force his way to get the CoR article kept despite deletions of said article. ;) MrMacMan 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you've already told them :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This thing has grown now - I've read about it and seen it a number of times on a couple different news sites. They had some interesting legal precedent with the DEA, which itself is noteworthy. It seems like there are a lot of politics behind the history of this wiki page, but at this point, I think the page should be up. People are looking for information on it - and better to have an unbiased wiki page, than JUST the (incredibly self serving) "church" website itself. Isn't that the point of wiki? To provide unbiased information? Come on guys, bite the bullet, put this back up, it's information we should have access to.

I know that there have been a lot of problems with the Church of Reality article, but it really should have at least something on it. Its an important idea for me. Also, when it shows up in a Richard Dawkins video, that makes it an even more important idea. Notice I did not say this is a 'real' religion. But it is an important idea right now. Someone made the comment above that this idea is silly and not notable. I disagree, I think that it may be a bit pretentious, but it is a very interesting idea.. certainly more interesting to me than many 'real' religions. And Wikipedia for me is, even though there are many issues with vandalism, self-promotion, etc., the best place to learn about important new ideas. We don't have to acknowledge that this is a 'legitimate' religion, promote it, or pretend that there are millions of followers. But a short neutral description of the concept is only fair. If there is any way to set it up so that there is at minimum a short neutral description without having vandalism, advertising, etc. (I know this is a challenge) or inappropriate content, I'm sure many people would really appreciate it.

Thanks very much for your time and consideration.

--Ithkuil 04:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chine Picture Addition

Hi Roy, I think your chine picture addition is helpful to the article. Expect however, some rapid editing from other SR-71 fans: your picture is of an A-12 on the Intrepid, not an SR-71. David Dempster 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for mis-identifying it, and thanks for the correction. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Airports

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Greenwood Lake Airport. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

neat City Island fix

Neat trick, floating TOC left - don't know why I haven't noticed that one before. Thanks! Tvoz 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know why more articles don't use it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revert

Hello,

With regard to your revert of New old stock the word "Stock" refers to inventory. In addition, I am not aware of the term "New old stock". I believe the correct term and what the individual is referring to the subject of inventory. Octopus-Hands 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New old stock is a pretty standard term. See, for example, [3], [4], and [5]. I get 565,000 Google hits for the phrase new old stock. The fact that you are "not aware of the term" is not a good reason to get rid of the article. I'm going to put it back the way it was for now. If you really think the topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for how to propose that it be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Image:Kohanim hands blessing photo.jpg for deletion

That image is stored on Commons, not Wikipedia. If you would like to ask for it to be deleted, you will need to see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. BigDT 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Antonov An-72

Sorry, that was a serious mistake on my part, I only meant to fix a stray capital letter. I've fixed my previous edit, and thanks for the catch. --Muchness 17:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

annoying mis-feature

"Please don't take this as being openly hostile, but I really think the numbers should 1) not be bold and 2) not in color. As it is, they draw attention to themselves way out of proportion to the rest of the line. Most of us have no interest in figuring out how to edit css stylesheets just to turn off this annoying mis-feature. -- RoySmith (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)"

User:RoySmith/monobook.css User:WAS 4.250/monobook.css WAS 4.250 09:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. I see the default has already been modified to get rid of the bold, which seems much more reasonable, so I'm going to go with the default for now. But thanks again for showing me how to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

asked for deletion review

Hi. Per WP rules, I'm lettinng you know that I have asked for a deletion review of your decision to delete Bryan Reynolds. I believe there was clearly a case for a "No consensus" decision, at the very least. ThanksShawn in Montreal 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

and no hard feelings, either way. The best for the New Year,Shawn in Montreal 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bok Man Kim

Just to let you know, I did some more research on Bok Man Kim today and realised that the article in its deleted state is also a copyvio of [6] and many other, similar websites. Maybe you want to include that in your closing statement. I agree that a recreation might be in order if some of the hinted-at sources materialize, but it shouldn't be in the current form. Sorry for not noticing this earlier. Take care, trialsanderrors 23:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, I'll add a note. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission was given from the author to use and actually the version that got deleted was not the same as on [7] which is operated by the author of the article. That was actually one of Djma12's arguments for deletion first he tried copyvio when that was unsucsessful he started questioning any sources given he did this with Jhoon Rhee also. It is late as I write this I hope I am making sense.Saboem 07:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll recall, the page was sucessfully speedy deleted per WP:CP upon first posting. You later insisted that you had emailed for copyright permission and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Djma12 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the most recent version prior to it being deleted; it has entire paragraphs which are almost word-for-word identical to the cited web site. That's clearly a copyvio. Even if there is permission from the copyright holder (which I didn't see), there were so many other problems with the article that it really is a moot point. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on WP:NOT#SOAP?

As you seem fairly well versed in Wiki deletion policies, I was wondering if you could take a look at Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts to see if it fit criteria for WP:NOT#SOAP?

I found this article to be fairly NPOV and suggested merging it with its antithesis. On reflection, however, BOTH articles seem to be mere soapboxes for individual martial-arts theories to me. Djma12 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Beats me. I know nothing about the subject matter, so I'm in a poor position to judge either article. My one comment is that both could probably use some editing; they both seem to jump into the middle of something without laying much of a groundwork. As a result, I find it difficult to follow either one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Proposal

Hi, I would like to write a real encyclopedia article about the "Church of Reality". I share the concerns of the editors here about the former article. It was more about shameless advertisement than anything else, and the founder wrote it, which is ridiculous. However, I believe there is some merit to it being an Internet phenomenon which people would like an independant history of, along the lines of Flying_spaghetti_monster, and would like to help resolve this conflict. If I take the time to write a good article, from a neutral point of view, is there someone I can submit it to for review? Coupdeforce 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could try Wikipedia:Deletion review. I should warn you, however, that I think it unlikely that you will meet with a positive response given the history of the article. But, if that's what you want to do, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it's not worth all the trouble, but I also think that there should be a good article about it. It sounds like deletion review is for people to justify a deleted article, which would not be my intention in this case. I think we need a much better article here, instead of the old one just being deleted and futher creations prohibited. There should at least be an explanation for the deletion and "protection", if nothing else. I feel that this contentious issue is not going to go away, so it would be nice if someone wrote a quality article about it now rather than later. Unfortunately I don't have any real interest in there being a good article or not, if I have to waste a lot of my time merely fighting for proper consideration. Basically my question was: is there an editor here who would review and consider an article if I take the time to write it? I am asking you about it here because the talk page for the article has been deleted and "protected" as well, and I do not want to defend the deleted article. Coupdeforce 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Deletion review would still be the correct venue. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you just want to start from scratch, start at User:Coupdeforce/Church of Reality and show it to any admin willing to lend you an ear, or submit it at WP:DRV for review. "Admin shopping" is discouraged though, so you should approach one that can give you a neutral assessment of the article and its sources. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Roy,

Thanks for reconsidering your position on the sailing article. Where do you sail, and what? I sail on SF Bay on a Catalina 380. Looking forward to drier weather right now.

Cheers!

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- the goal is to make the encyclopedia better, not to win arguments. I've got a J/24 (a Hall of Fame boat :-)) that I sail out of the Harlem Yacht Club on City Island, NY. This weekend, I was wishing I was still in the water -- it hit 70 degrees here yesterday, which is pretty bizarre for January in New York. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Darn i cannot count

You're right about the 68451! David.Monniaux 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring and all that

The problem is simple. We have very few people on m:OTRS and schools take an inordinate amount of time compared to their encyclopedic interest. So, ditch them. I consider requesting the Foundation to force the issue. In the meantime, I'll disregard bureaucratic rules ("ignore all rules") and consider that the first goal is to be an encyclopedic (and not a catalogue of articles without sources on obscure schools, peppered with anecdotes from students).

So, no undeletion unless somebody wants to deal with this article personally. This means patrolling it and removing crap if it reappears. David.Monniaux 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Schools? It basically says that unless the article demonstrate that the school is special in some way, then the article should be deleted. David.Monniaux 09:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Including the part in the box at the top that says, This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. In any case, as you've probably noticed, I've put it up for AfD. You might want to make your arguments there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:AN-72-Farnborough2004-4.jpg

Hello, Image:AN-72-Farnborough2004-4.jpg was moved to Wikimedia Commons. If you want to edit information about it, please go to commons:Image:AN-72-Farnborough2004-4.jpg. Conscious 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

McLouth High School

Absolutely zero sources and zero evidence of notability. David.Monniaux 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence fragments

Thanks for removing wherever my mind trailed off to at Wikipedia:Disambiguation - I'm glad someone caught it before too many people tried to figure out what crazy person tried to convey something there. Many thanks, -- Natalya 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad I could be of

Hahahahahahahaha - too funny! -- Natalya 05:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutty Sark

I see you protected the article on Cutty Sark just after I rv'ed it. I am quite new to W and I was wondering if I did anything wrong? or if it was because of the vandalism I was also trying to counteract? Thanks --83.105.95.62 15:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the interest in this article has reduced, could you consider removing the protection? I think there are now enough people watching the article to quickly revert any vandalism that occurs. See the comment from User:Wiki old schooler on the article's talk page, and my reply. – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WOM

Hi Roy, I am the guy who was editing the Write Only Memory page, sorry I saved a partially edited version, this was NOT an attempt at vandalism, but I did tone it down a little to make it look more professional.

I also kept the original SIGNETICS story in tact.

I did re-write the top, I think it's more concise and it flows better, but you're welcome to change it. My background is in electronics and in computer engineering but I am fairly new to wiki.

Martin ([email protected]) Winnipeg.

My apologies if I mis-construed your intentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: WOM --> AQL

AQL = Acceptable Quality Level, added references, Martin

Re: WOM --> 585 Tek

Thanks for the link Roy, as it turns out, I have been going through a pile of old Tek scope manuals down my basement, I need to find the righ vertical plugin, the 535, 545, 585...series were the mainframes but it was the plug-ins that had the RCHs, possibly 1A1, 1A2... but it's like finding a needle in a hay-stack I will post it when (if) I find it, Martin.

Those were great instruments. I remember opening one up to fix something and finding that it came with a small roll of silver solder mounted inside the chassis frame to encourage techs to use that instead of whatever 60/40 they had laying around the bench. They don't make stuff like that anymore. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke

It's not an A7, there are 52 stories about her multiple national records going back several years. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the subject's age, I think we should apply a greater degree of conservative judgement than one might normally do so in deciding if CSD-A7 applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A7 is for no assertion of importance or significance. Why not let the AfD run and decide this? Leaving the article for a week while we decide this isn't going to cause any harm, because if the article actually contained harmful material it could be removed on sight. What's harmful about saying she hold two records and has been said to be headed for the olympics? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentimentality aside, the subject has reached the age of majority and must therefore be treated as any other adult.

CSD-A7 does not apply, as this is clearly not uncontroversial. WP:BLP can be a subject for discussion, but this is not basis for speedy. Living people bios can be speedied if they are libellous, but that is clearly not the case here - the article was neutral and well referenced. We've already been through one round of this, why so afraid to let the community have its say? Lampman 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at World record progression pole vault women, you can see she's already beaten what was a world record 15 years ago. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I applied my judgement. If you believe my judgement was in error, please bring this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Shocking statement

I don't particularly care if the abuse of power by certain admins angers some people. - I think you need to seriously consider your position as an Administrator, and whether such position is tenable in the light of this statement you made in Deletion_review#Allison_Stokke. -- Js farrar 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are shocked, but I believe you've misunderstood my statement. You seem to have interpreted it as, I don't care that I've abused my power. That's not what I meant. It should be read as, I don't care that some people are angry because they believe I've abused my power. My job is to do the right thing for the project. While it saddens me that some people are angry, I can't let their anger control my actions. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your job is to refrain from abusing your power; if you abuse your power, you are (in my opinion) utterly unworthy of Adminship. Js farrar 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

(Copied from DRV)

• I've created a biographical stub of another notable athlete at Tori Anthony, in case anyone's interested in pointing out what issues apply there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's called making a wp:point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify how this is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? That's a very serious charge. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

al-Marri

Why did you redirect Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri? The shorter name is preferable for the title, particularly when there is no issue of disambiguation (noone else named Ali al-Marri) and when the longer proper cultural names of individuals can be rather excessive. Regards, -Stevertigo 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri article already existed. I only created another title pointing to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Digital Mars

If you restore it, make sure you make it more than 2 sentences. Before deletion it read exactly:

Digital Mars is a company that makes C, C++, and D programming language compilers for Windows, Linux and DOS available for free on their website. They also sell a CD with extra utilities, such as an IDE.

Which doesn't remotely assert notability and is sub-stub and subject to deletion. It simply need more content and references to stay up to keep it inline with our current policy. Cheers and happy editing. Sasquatch t|c 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored it and reworded it a bit to make it clear that they are notable for producing the D programming language. It's still a stub, and perhaps not even a very good one at that, but I think they're notable enough to not deserve a speedy. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tail wind

Reference your edit to B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base, I understand that a tailwind is generally believe to not contribute to an accelarated stall. The USAF accident investigation, however, was very clear that the tailwind influenced the accelerated stall for that aircraft. In spite of generally accepted flight science, I have to use what the sources say for information in the article. CLA 02:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Nathans

Your "See also Nathan's Famous" (seafood) addition to the Daniel Nathans (Nobel prizewinner) page seems like advertisement. I have reverted your edit. Was there a helpful reason for this edit, such as a connection beyond just the name "Nathans", that I did not see? Antelan ^talk 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have also reverted your edit to frog legs. As I said above, these appeared to be advertisement in nature, but if not, please let me know the relevance so I can flesh out these edits. Antelan ^talk 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement? As for the see also, I was looking for the restaurant, typed "Nathans" into the search box, and ended up at Daniel Nathans due to the redirect. The see also seemed like a perfectly reasonable navigation aid for two names which differ only by punctuation. The relevance of the frog legs edit is pretty straight-forward; it's a link to a restaurant which serves the dish. I think they're both perfectly reasonable additions to the respective articles. They certainly weren't meant as adversising. I have no relationship to Nathan's other than having fond memories of my dad taking me there when I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn to get frogs legs. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RogueStuff.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RogueStuff.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:RogueWin.png

I have tagged Image:RogueWin.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:RogueScreenShot.png

I have tagged Image:RogueScreenShot.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IPv6 NAT

There have been sufficient discussions in NANOG and the IETF, especially in scenarios involving transition (e.g., merger/acquisition/divestiture), and some approaches to multihoming, that I consider it extremely unwise to say NAT will never be needed. Undesirable, certainly. Much less frequent, certainly.

At the level of a Wikipedia article, it's also well to avoid confusion with what is actually a stateful proxy firewall that may appear to be a NAT. Consider a firewall that proxies between registered IPv4 space and RFC1918 space. To most people that aren't protocol architects, it's hard enough to explain this isn't NAT even though, for example, there may be two distinct TCP sessions. Now, think of a stateful firewall with aggregatable unicast IPv6 on the outside and ULA space on the inside. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on the Black Sea

re: Your edits to Black Sea

I'm looking at an edit you made to Black Sea recently. You ended up with ... the Bosporus (strait also known as the Dardenelles). I'm not sure what you intended to write, but I think you lost a few words there. The Bosporus and the Dardenelles are two different straits. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ooops! HATE when that happens (this should do it!!!) Silly me, I'd thought for a lifetime they were name substitutes! Who put a damn sea inbetween! The nerve! (My classics and latin teacher wasn't too good about tying things geographically, so I've spent a lifetime in error! <G>) Thanks! Best regards // FrankB 01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Using sextant swing.gif

Isn't that backwards? I was taught to find the celestial body first, then bring it down to the horizon, not bring the horizon up to the body as you're showing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• We can do it both ways. The method of bringing the body to the horizon is normally used with stars. But I suppose it all depends on the experience of the observer; the way it is shown in the animation is a little harder (I should say "was" because astro navigation is no lo«ger used :-( ) - Alvesgaspar 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Move request

Thanks for doing the chore at the Lich arse article; I don't speak German either, but I hope someone will quickly repair the subject line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WOO (call sign)

Roy, I saw your deletion of my personal observation and I understand the reason. I kind of felt it wasn't totally appropriate at the time. However, you request a citation for the part about the ficticious yacht names. I don't know how to provide that. I was an employee of AT&T at the time, working those circuits, and all of us knew that no such yachts existed. All I can suggest is that another former employee might be able to substantiate what I said.--Sherrel 06:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pascack Valley Line

I undid your revert to Pascack Valley Line. The text that was removed is redundant. The same information appears two paragraphs earlier, with verifiable source references. It would have been nice if the anon IP editor had said that in the Edit summary. Truthanado 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time to do a more complete investigation than I did. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Blade (disambiguation)

Sorry for reverting your edits; I have reverted it back. I reverted it because I saw that you added "a gay newspaper" to the page. Now I know that it is really a gay newspaper. My apologies. — Wenli ^(contribs) 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, a spade is just a spade :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I was drinking a cup of coffee at the time...; it went everywhere.

Nothing important, but your last edit summary on Earth's atmosphere, Protected Earth's atmosphere: lots of stupid vandalism (it's back to school time) had me in (albeit possibly unintentional) stitches. FlowerpotmaN·(t)

The Bronx

Why did you remove the image of yankee stadium? futurebird 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

hmmm. I was reverting what appeared to be some minor vandalism (sticking a "|" in front of the South Bronx section heading. I didn't notice that I was also reverting the addition of the image. Sorry about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay! No big deal. :) futurebird 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts to Global Positioning System

Please re-check when you're reverting pages; your last two edits to Global Positioning System ([8], [9]) have both been to revert to a vandalised version. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that. Not sure what happened there. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A clever vandal - was simultaneously on as an IP and an account - you were reverting the IP but it was taking it back to the also-vandalised version by the logged-on account. Now blocked. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work!

Great work fighting off the vandals on Wikipedia! It is one of those drudge tasks that just have to be done, so thanks for taking it on. One minor note, you should probably subst vandal warning templates (like {{test-n|Page}}<nowiki> should be <nowiki>{{subst:test-n|Page}}). There are also a number of other warning templates available at WP:VAND. If you have any questions or there is something I can help with, feel free to write a note on my talk page. Keep up the great work! ---- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I think I'm at my best when I'm doing mindless stuff like vandal fighting. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Adolfo Carrion

As I mentioned months ago when I asked for the removal of protection on the article, I have completed a biography. I welcome any constructive comments you could provide that would help me enhance the article or bring it closer to the perfect article.

Thank you for your patience. Wbennin 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The major issues with the previous versions of of this article have been:

1. They were copyright violations
2. They were not written from a wp:npov

It sounds like you've already found Wikipedia:The perfect article; as long as write an article which meets those criteria, you should be good. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Matcan

Hi, I found out that you deleted the page related to "sextant properties" in no time (less than the 5 days written in the notice message!!!) there was no spam link in this article and I improved it so that it does not look commercial but give the facts and history of the company. I only wanted to have this page because I think it is as right as savills or rightmove have their own pages on wikipedia and they are not deleted. I look forward to hearing from you. Mat

Yes, I deleted it because I felt it met the criteria set out in wp:csd. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

74181

Did you know? was updated. On 2 November, 2007, a fact from the article 74181, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For providing the references that saved the 74181 article from the trashcan. 74s181 19:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CNN article in Flying Spaghetti Monster is redundant

Hi there! I see you added the CNN article to Flying Spaghetti Monster. While I'm always glad to see more media coverage of His Noodleness, including it in External Links is redundant, because that article is already included in the References section, as it is cited elsewhere in the article.

I would just rollback your change, but alas, you are the 3rd person today to add it to the EL section, so it would put in me in potential WP:3RR jeopardy. Would you consider rolling back your edit, since the link is redundant? Thanks! ---- Jaysweet (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. In my enthusiasm, I didn't notice the earlier mentions. I don't think 3RR is meant to apply here, but sure, I'll fix it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured I could probably make a case that it was not 3RR, but I didn't want to risk any controversy in the event you objected. Thanks! And incidentally, it turned out to be a happy coincidence because I noticed you had fixed the publisher in your cite to be AP instead of CNN, so I fixed the same problem in my cite. heh... Anyway, thanks again! ---- Jaysweet (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an edit war

I've been in edit wars. 7400 series is not having an edit war. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, whatever. I still think you would do better to hash out your differences on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)