User talk:RoySmith/Archive 2

City Island page move

See the corrseponding talk page. No offense, but I'm REALLY tired. Pacific Coast Highway 03:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You

You are most welcome to visit my new user page, you feature in it.

MOS rant

Thanks for the comment about my MOS rant — I was semi-expecting more opposition than agreement, so it's great to hear that someone agrees with me! If only others saw it the same way... :-D Neonumbers 09:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader

Thanks for the note about my successful RfA. You have always been something of a diambiguation crusader hero of mine. --Commander Keane 20:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to be neutral on my request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future. ALKIVAR™ 07:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question on my talk page.—GraemeMcRae^talk 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating abbreviations

You contributed to the TFD discussion for {{2LCdisambig}}. I am following this with further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Abbreviations. Susvolans ⇔ 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality

And you deleted the Church of Reality because? --Marcperkel 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (item General/4) --RoySmith 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was originally deleted was that at the time it was considered to not be notable with 3,000 google hits and it wasn't an IRS recognized church. It now has 24,900 google hits and it is an IRS recognized church. So the reason it was deleted no longer exists. So - can you undelete it? --Marcperkel 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already listed it on WP:DRV, which is the correct procedure, thank you. If the consensus there is that it should be undeleted, I (or some other admin) will be happy to undelete it. --02:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But there are LIES there about the CoR having only ONE member. I'm correcting that.

--Marcperkel 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't threaten anyone. I will direct members to plead the case of the Church of Reality direcly to those who are blocking it. If we can't talk about it in the undelete section then we will have to go to those who are deleting it. If you won't let me speak then they will help me be heard. --Marcperkel 19:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, he's already sent out an e-mail telling people on his little mailing list to post things to my user page. I think he's on the fast track to getting blocked, personally. --Fastfission 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post on the Administrators%27 noticeboard... Church of Reality was recently deleted after an ugly fight culminating in the author of that article, Mark Perkel, being blocked for a week and deleted page being protected. Perkel then userfied the CofR page. Now, there's a Marc Perkel article, which contains a wikilink to that userfied version. It's unclear how to deal with this. On the one hand, I guess a user has the right to put whatever they want on their user pages. On the other hand, this looks like it's really just a clever way to get around the deletion process. Perhaps some more experienced admins could take a look at this and figure out what (if anything) should be done? --RoySmith 17:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (I hope you don't mind the c/p... I didn't feel like my comment should be on that page...) I "userfied" a small subset of the CofR page (which I outlined here), not Marc (not that it actually makes a difference, but I feel I should take credit for that blunder). I also put the link to that page into the Marc Perkel article, but it looks like Cryptic fixed that. I didn't know linking to the user space from the main space was against policy... Anyway, I just wanted to apologize and let you know that I actually created the sub page and I'm still not even sure that Marc even knows about it... Only one other user has even touched it for the whole week it has been up and all he did was remove the stubs I added to the bottom of the post. (Which apparently is also against policy...) Sorry about that. Paul^talk+ 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that the Church of Reality page on Wikipedia was deleted, and stumbled on this. I was just wondering: why censor things that you don't like or are politically incorrect? What's the point of continuing to have this article nonexistant when it is a valid subject that people can legitimately want information about? Keeping this information off of Wikipedia, wether or not you happen to like the author, seems counter-intuitive to the Claim to Fame and motto of Wikipedia: "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" that is "of the highest possible quality". How good of quality can it be when articles are censored based on false claims and a personal quarrel with an individual? In the name of integrity, please restore this article. --StormTrooperVII 15:32, 11 March 2006 (CST)

I just found the Church of Reality web page and found it to be quite good. In the page it mentioned problems with Wikipedia and thought I would check it out. It really does not make sense that anyone should take it on themselves to sensor. PLEASE restore this article - whether you like Mark Perkell or not!!! Otherwise you are simply turning down the volume of the individual which you are debating! Refusing this content on Wikapedia is counter to the claim of what it IS!!!!!!!

Here it is, almost four months since the last comment and this page is still in deleted status. Regardless of the Widipedia's editors and moderators personal feelings towards previous individual's behavior, the fact remains that the Church of Reality is a IRS recognized "non profit" and this fact alone *requires* a Wikipedia entry.

IMHO, not having a reference to the Church of Reality and what it stands for is a disadvantage to the readers of Wikipedia and therefore contrary to Wikipedia's mission statement(s) of providing information to all readers; This must / ought to be regardless of how editors feel about theism or what roles the more established religions play in their own personal lives. I find the writings on the Cof R site to be quite inspiring and condusive to thought on why we believe what we do or in fact, maybe even the opposite, what we don't believe in, and why that is so. Do every reader a good service and reinstate the information about and the link to the Church of Reality.

Why did you delete the Church of Reality article? It's a completly valid non-profit tax-exempt orginization. This would be like someone deleting the Roman Catholic Church article. -Safreti

Since when is an encyclopedia allowed to determine what we should see? Keep censoring sites like this for petty reasons and I will be forced to stop using wikipedia. --Matthew D. Sullivan

Please unblock me!

Hi, Curps, I trust you watch my talk page and will see this. It's really kind of funny, so please read the whole thing.

It all started when I was watching the recent Church of Reality blowup on WP:DRV and was thinking of blocking User:Marcperkel but I've never actually blocked anybody since being made an admin. Rather than experiment on somebody else, I figured I'd practice on myself.

So, I made myself a new account with the user name of (you can see what's coming, can't you?) RoySmith-1. I figured I'd log in as RoySmith-1, make some minor edit, then log in again as RoySmtih and block RoySmith-1 to see how it works.

Well, before I could get to that, some friendly admin named User:Curps came along and protected me from evil impersonators by blocking User:RoySmith-1:

19:31, 29 November 2005 Curps blocked "User:RoySmith-1" with an expiry time of indefinite (too similar to existing user RoySmith)

Apparently, this also triggered an auto-block of the IP address User:RoySmith-1 logged in from, namely 66.114.67.13, which is the static IP of my DSL connection:

19:33, 29 November 2005, Curps blocked #61835 (expires 19:33, 30 November 2005) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "RoySmith-1". The reason given for RoySmith-1's block is: "too similar to existing user RoySmith".)

Which means I can't log in either! I assure you, I really do find this whole chain of events rather funny, but could you please unblock my IP so I can log in again? Thanks. --RoySmith 01:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, happened to see this in recent changes, so I'll just unbock you myself. Cheers,Sean|Bla ck 01:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm free, I'm free! Thanks :-) --RoySmith 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To test blocking, you can just block yourself, no need to create a new account. Just select "other" and enter something like "60 seconds". -- Curps 01:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, under the above circumstances you could just unblock yourself, no need to wait for someone else. -- Curps 01:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Sorry, I just couldn't resist accepting your challenge. =] Peyna 03:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, points for trying. It was better than most. --RoySmith 03:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a whole 5 minutes trying to think of something clever. More time than I put into most of my edits. I still feel empty afterwards though. Vandalism just isn't as rewarding as actual contributing. Peyna 03:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, think of it this way, things can only improve! --RoySmith 03:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedying

You said "It looks like you speedied 4 or 5 items inside a single set of at/ab templates. Is that what you intended?"

To which the only reply can be: oh, good golly, no! Um. I speedied Jody Capps, and closed that AfD ... what else have I done? Thanks for bringing this to my attention! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poor admin?

I see you are a recent admin, however, your creation of User:RoySmith-1 to me seems rather imature and poor way to test, and I personally don't feel that logging up wikipedia with your tests is useful.

Also from looking at you, you seen rather harsh with your actions, and commonly revert edits, which could be disputed, and do not bother to discuss on the talk page, personally I am unsure of your value to WP.

(above unsigned comment by User:172.202.83.40)

If there are any particular edits that I reverted which you think I did in error, I would be happy to discuss them with you if you care to identify yourself. Or you are free to revert my reversions if you prefer. --RoySmith 18:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to ntice this comment. It seems pretty gutless to come in and make lame accusations with no examples as an anon. Is this anon useful to wikipedia? Also what is the evidence that Roy created that User:RoySmith-1 user page? It too was created by an anon user David D. (Talk) 19:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK i just saw the above description of the block and static IP. Still using anon accounts to make comments as above is not helpful. It would be really ironic if said user was an admin too. David D. (Talk) 19:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators

We were at 60% at the end of 5 days, which means that a consensus may be in the realm of possibility if the discussion period is extended, which is hardly an unheard of practices in past instances that have been similar. I recommend reopening the vote-- two days at the very least in order to make the discussion period a full week-- rather than protecting the page. 172 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that an error was made in the procedure. There was no error. But Wikipedia is not a legal bureaucracy. Administrators overseeing the VfD process have the discretion to extend discussion periods. IMO this instance is the right time for someone to use such discretion in order to give the other editors who have not yet had the chance to post their feedback a chance to work toward a consensus on the discussion. 172 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you unprotect this page since there is no harm in further discussion. Since there was neither an edit war to stop nor a request for protection on WP:RFPP, your action left me puzzled. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is closed, so protecting the page does no harm. As a practical matter, I do notice that the discussion is still going on full-force in a number of different places, so I don't think anybody is being stiffled. If you can find some other admin to unprotect it, I won't object. --RoySmith 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Anyway it was an easy mistake. A problem with my sig meant that I had to use jtdirl rather than fearÉireann at one stage to sign a comment, and so it may have looked like two people. It would have been dishonest to leave both there. I wouldn't dream of leaving both there. Thanks for the message. It was appreciated. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts?

I do not understand how you can justify "reverting" my comments in the vote for deletion on Sholom Keller [1]. If, as has been claimed, the Vfd is a discussion, then reverting such comments is akin to vandalism on your part, and an attempt to influence the voting process. Note that it is also mutually exclusive to the afd-newbie tag put in by User:Peyna. Whilst I understand your decision to "back up" an admin who was accused of doing the wrong thing (User:Splash), you doing the wrong thing as well only makes things worse.

Please can you "revert" the "reverting" that you did, to aid in the discussion process, and also remove the "newbie" tag put in by Peyna. Thanks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically prompted me to revert your "clarifications" was the comment by FluteyFlakes88. This person said Don't Delete, and you added Keep. One had to read carefully to make sure those were two different ways of saying the same thing, not two different comments. Your clarification actually made things more confusing. For what it's worth, I was not "backing up another admin". I made my revert before I even noticed that somebody else had already reverted your similar comments.

I have dropped a note at User talk:Michan asking that user to clarify their comment, which I think is the appropriate way to deal with unclear comments. I did not do the same with the anon commenters, because I tend to completely discount comments from anons. If you think it would be useful, I invite you to likewise ask them to clarify their own comments.

As for the afd-newbie tag, I had nothing to do with that, I suggest you take that up with the user who placed it there. --RoySmith 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support even though I decided against you; it means a lot for me. I really hate these close AfDs, especially since it seems to have been a first contribution, but there will always be borderline cases. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While the AfD for this has already been closed, I want to chime in since my name was mentioned. I added the {{afd-newbies}} in order to emphasis that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. It's not any kind of official template. In fact, it was created a couple of days ago in response to another contentious AfD that involved Meatpuppets. I think it was entirely appropriate given the apparrent misconception of several of the people involved in the discussion that AfD is a democratic voting process. Peyna 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyronano and Thermogentech

I just merged these two articles like you asked. I hope everything looks OK. (Stephen Day 20:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Looks fine, thanks. --RoySmith 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lizzy_the_Eagle

Hi there. I noticed in the AFD that there was a consensus vote to merge (5/0) yet you decided to redirect. Whilst I can't recall what the content of the artice was, I was wondering if you would be able to reproduce it in to College_of_Saint_Elizabeth? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content of Lizzy the Eagle was: Lizzy the Eagle is the mascot of the College of Saint Elizabeth. Lizzy is a bald eagle. The name Lizzy comes from a shortened nickname of Elizabeth.. College_of_Saint_Elizabeth already contained the text Mascot: Lizzy the Eagle, which seemed to cover things well enough. If you think something significant got left out, then by all means, please add it. --RoySmith 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a stalker?

Seems not only do you delete my articles but also articles that other people write about me. You seem determined to delete anything about me and the Church of Reality. What's up with that?--Marcperkel 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The most unfortunate of all eggs

...has seen some attention by another editor, and some cleaning by me. Would you take another look at Shirred egg and perhaps reconsider your afd vote? :) --Syrthiss 17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theocracy

I ran across you on the edits for Anne Hutchinson and I thought you might like to, or perhaps might know someone who would like to help me edit the Theocracy page? It's currently in a very shoddy state and I'm not quite sure how to go about editing it. Any sudjestions? I'd love to hear from you. --spazz 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I don't know why my previous entry was entilted "Theology", it was a slip of the hand I think, I really just wanted to recruit you since you seemed knowledgeable and fair. I'm currently doing a research project on Anne Hutchinson, hence my interest in theocracy, which seems to be left out of the article yet for some reason seems to play a role somewhere in her trial acording to my studies. Thanks for the help. Spazz 20:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Carrión Jr.

Yes, one would think after 5 copyvio reverts that editor would get the message. :) Anyway, I'll keep an eye on it. Garion96 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user

Thanks for blocking 141.154.58.89. Their behavior was really annoying. --Aude 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You people are a bunch of losers you have nothing better to do then patrol this site. Why does it bother you that I add my birthday to the list. Get a life loser

Self repairing vandals and newbies

Hi there. I saw your note in the Administrator's noticeboard, and I thought I'd write to you in your talk page about it, since its actually a pretty big deal to me with this kind of topic.

I think that we should realise that we are all newbies once. I can remember being a newbie, and really in a lot of ways I still am a newbie. Still lots of stuff I don't understand. I just found out how to e-mail a user yesterday, and I still think I did it wrong. I am sure that you can remember being a newbie too. And you can probably remember some of the experimentation that you did too. Or even if you didn't do any, you were probably accused of doing the wrong thing. I think that pretty much everyone is. I think that every newbie gets bitten at some point, in spite of WP:BITE. Is there a newbie who is not bitten? I don't know. Every one I see is. Some get bitten worse than others, and some retaliate while others quit while others actually work to try to prove themselves worthy. And of course some newbies aren't really newbies at all.

I make a point to help out what I term "newbies in distress" whenever I can. The way I figure it is that if they are doing the wrong thing and I help them out, then they might be inspired to do the right thing, while if they are being unfairly blamed for things, and I help them out then they will probably calm down and not retaliate and become good editors. I had a case with User:Fortunelounge and another with User:Peter Campbell recently which went along those lines.

I know that people generally view that WP:AGF only applies to long term users, and should be ignored with newbies, but I think that we should go the other way. Older editors really should know what they are doing and hence any "slip ups" are more likely to be deliberate, while newbies probably don't know what they are doing. Hence I think that we should go out of our way to help newbies.

I don't think that templates on users' talk pages is a good way to go at all. If you are going to accuse them of vandalism, explain why. Quote the link to where they vandalised things and explain to them why you think that it is vandalism. They are much less likely to get hostile that way. Templates often lead to confusion as well, which makes matters worse again - they might not even understand what vandalism really is. Warning someone should always be personal.

Welcome messages I guess can be a template, but ideally should be a bit personalised. I usually write to them something specific to their case, which is usually along the same lines as what I usually say. For example, someone who is accused of vandalism I will explain what vandalism is and why other editors are worried and what they can do to avoid such accusations in the future. Someone who is retaliating I will explain why it upsets people and suggest better ways to deal with things. And someone who is having trouble with AFDs I will explain how the AFD process works.

Now, that being said, not all newbies are worth it. Some of them really are no good. For example, User:Fortunelounge who I helped out, and managed to get creation of Fortune Lounge Group then turned around and started vandalising the article to put a PR spin on it where he pretended that they had never been accused of spamming anyone, and caused a lot of problems. I even wrote to an admin asking for them to be blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. Others just aren't appreciative and become abusive anyway. But I still think its worth it.

Sometimes I also see behaviour that is so suspicious that I will ask an admin for a 2nd opinion. There was one guy I noticed who was uploading a bunch of images of underage girls in provocative poses, which I thought could be considered to be child pornography. Someone else was making subtle changes to a lot of articles without referencing anything, and one really caught my eye as it was Seigenthaler like, saying, "He once wrote a song that was interpreted by some as being a diss at G-Unit. Nothing was ever proven". De ja vu eat your heart out. I reverted that edit, but didn't send him a message about it. I think such things need a second opinion.

As for the specific case though, I would ignore it. Maybe you can send him a welcome message anyway, and maybe just casually write something about vandalism as well - not as a warning but more as an explanation so that they understand the rules. Be positive about it. If they had the sense to revert their own vandalism, they are probably going to be a good user.

Anyway, I hope that that wasn't too long. By the way, I wrote a bit about it here User:Zordrac/newbies so I don't know if you want to look at that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore button

Hi. Do you know of a way to ban someone from editing your talk page? A certain user keeps writing me threats on my talk page and I have tried to get rid of them as I don't want them there and they keep reverting my edits. I want to block them from being able to edit my talk page. Is this possible? If there is a way, can you tell me how? Alternatively, I'd like like them to be banned. Ideally however, just to be banned from my talk page. They are basically stalking me right now. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Should I quote individual edits? Its actually a bit difficult for me because it just upsets me so much to read what he is writing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise

I quit Wikipedia because I was being stalked. I did not intend for them to also stalk me on your user page as well. I really feel embarassed about that, and if there was any way I could stop it, then I would. But until the stalker problem is dealt with, I can't safely use Wikipedia. I could detail all of his other behaviour, which is along this line, and its not just against me. But I'm sure you've seen it all. Why he isn't banned to begin with is beyond me. He has the mentality of deciding to prove he's not stalking by engaging in stalking. Proving he's not threatening by threatening. That's the kind of person you are dealing with there. All I want is to not have to deal with him anymore. I don't need him blocked. I just need him blocked from following me and harassing me. That's all. The fact that he followed me on to here should be enough proof for you, but if you doubt it, go and have a look at my talk page history, and then have another look at Talk: Daniel Brandt. It shouldn't be hard to figure out what's going on here. Not to mention his vandalism of the Daniel Brandt article to begin with. The guy targetted me due to his obsessive hatred of Daniel Brandt. That's about as simple as it gets. I tried to talk to him, but he just used every effort of kindness against me, and used it as fuel for his attacking me. There is really nothing more that I can do, and if nobody else is prepared to deal with him, then there is no point to me being here. That's why I haven't edited an article since December 24th, and I won't either while this abuse keeps up. He's even criticised me for trying to help out newbies and tried to get me banned for doing it, by lying about what I'm doing. I just want him gone. And if you won't do it, then fine, we're stuck with an abusive user. I for one am not going to put up with this nonsense. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Help me out with a problem user?

The problem user in question is Zordrac (talk · contribs), and the problem is that he is telling lies about me on multiple pages in Wikipedia, including this user page. This is a small summary of the lies Zordrac has been telling about me -- that I requested him to badmouth me to Daniel Brandt, as he maliciously reports that he did here, that I broke the 3RR with fifteen reverts in a 24-hour period, and that I tried to "out" him in some way that has nothing to do with "outing" as anyone else understands that term. Now he's added the accusation that I am "threatening" him. What he does not mention is that the only thing I have "threatened" him with is a Request for Arbitration against him, and he does not dare mention this because then he would have to answer why he's complaining about this when he made that exact threat to me first? He does not dare file an actual RfAr because it will show up his lies for what they are. I have no fear of an RfAr for the same reason; whether it is an RfAr by him or for him it will show him up as a despicable liar, which is why he's running from user, trying to find new allies as the old ones find out that nothing he's told them is true. So, please advise me -- how do I go about starting the RfAr against this liar, to put an end to his malicious attacks on my good name? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making things worse for yourself. Its just not conceivable that you could have "stumbled upon this page". This is the very definition of Wikistalking. Please stop it. I have already asked you to stop your harassment, so please stop it. That includes following me around on to other people's user pages. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually, seriously trying to pretend that you have perfect freedom to go to any user's talk page and spin a tissue of malicious lies about me, but somehow it's "Wikistalking" for me to defend my own good name in all the places you're splashing mud on it? What revolting idiocy you do come up with. As long as you keep trying to slander me behind my back, Zordrac, I'll continue to keep the record clear and show you up for the liar you are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest both of you guys just chill out. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If you guys want to continue this (even assuming you're not mutual sockpuppets), please take it somewhere else. If you continue this diatribe here, I'll be happy to block either or both of you for 24 hours. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana dispute

THANK YOU for finding that. I work for Cisco in the daytime :-) and even the engineers there weren't able to verify that for me. I had always thought it was 3Com, which goes to show how effective their marketing was in the early 90s. Embarrassed I couldn't find that on my own. Thanks again! 1001001 05:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The part that's bugging me is that the AT&T reference says, Frame switching was the first Ethernet switching technology and was introduced by Kalpana and others in 1990. It's really got my curiosity going as to who the others were. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dzoo-noo-qua

Your closing statement made me laugh. Thanks for the giggle. Joyous | Talk 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing my job :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pell's Point

I took semi protection off since this looks like it's a problem with just one vandal. Since it's pretty clear that this is a static IP, you could easily block him for a longer period if need be. I did see one other vandal edit but that might've been a drive by. If it gets worse, use SP. Otherwise, if it's just one user, it's easier to block. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It may be one vandal, be he seems to keep moving around from IP to IP. We'll see what happens. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City

I'm a little puzzled as to why you deleted the clarification of this list. The things I put in there were to make the article clear as to what a cultural institution was. I think you have good judgment, so I won't put it back until we can reach a consensus on it, or at least rephrase it. Nonetheless, I think we need to specify what we mean to give proper context. Donbas 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't see that anybody would think that the Empire State Building or Columbia University were museums or cultural institutions, so I didn't see the need to explain why they weren't there. I don't have any strong feelings about it, though, so go ahead and put them back if you disagree. I was mostly in the article to add the new template to the bottom. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback

Hi Roy-- I responded to your message on my Talk page. --gbambino 22:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation in NYC

Hello RoySmith - I notice you're a member of WikiProject New York City. Have a look at the Transportation in New York City sub article. It tells a fascinating story and it's been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week after lots of work over the last few weeks. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:129.118.7.146

I looked at their edits and found that they all involving banking articles or part of them and replacing all the text with large numbers of LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL etc. I had initially presumed that he had made a couple of serious attempts at vandalism. But looking back at what he had done I discovered that it was far more serious. It wasn't one or two subtle doctorings but the effective ruining of entire articles and talk pages. The user had already been warned to stop vandalising by others. I concluded that the vandalism was of such a scale as to warrant an immediate block — I had imposed a final warning based on seeing just a couple of examples of what turned out to be a far more widespread and far more destructive form of vandalism. That was within a minute or two of analysing their full edits. However my internet link crashed and I have only been able to get on periodically since, so I was not able immediately to correct the template and have not been able to fix all his vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on anti-vaccionist article

There is simply no basis for prematurely closing the vote. I can see where it's going, but closing it early just puts a dark cloud over it. Let it run its course, and please try to stick to policy and guidelines. --Leifern 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can all see where it is going. We could mostly see where it was going when the AFD was made. A lot of effort and wordage had been wasted on process (and insults) rather than content or improvement, which suits one agenda (not the unsubtle Leifern's). Good decision. Midgley 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intents and purposes

Thanks, I'll remember that for next time :P --CDN99 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was only 3 votes to delete. One vote was by an anon that has decorated his sigs with the Name the Invisible Anon, but really is just an IP only. Agree with the speedy resolution. Kd4ttc 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, Leifern's not given up on that page, and has now issued what I regard as a threat of legal action on the talk page and emailed me separately to continue a conversation I have previously made it clear I do not welcome. Leifern's first contact with me was a set of threats against me over an edit, followed by this sustained attack on the page, in loose association with User:Whale.to, User:Ombudsman and User:86.10.231.219 -> [2]. The latter three are undoubtedly anti-vaccinationists. Leifern is at least by association and action, although like two of those others he rejects the label, and claims that none exist. I'd be grateful for your advice, please. Midgley 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that both of you probaby need to take a wikibreak. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel organizations Deletion

Hi thanks for speedy deleting this article, you forgot to close it out though =)!! Mike _{(T C)} 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry about forgetting to close it out. It's done now. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davids Island

OK? There is more info on local TV news.

http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/davids_island.htm

http://www.fcwc.org/issues/monthly/0602_activist_davids_island.htm

http://www.fcwc.org/issues/davids/080502_release.htm

24.44.77.99 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot message

What do you want it to be, its @ user:Tawkerbot2/test1 - people keep telling me to change the message (check its history) -- Tawker 02:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have changed since the message I saw. At this point, I would certainly have some link to wp:bot, so the poor user will have some clue what you're talking about. Feel free to unblock it if you want; I just wanted to make sure somebody was watching. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi RoySmith. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an rfa turning into a brawl ("which is never a good thing")

You probably remember Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-vaccinationists for the outpouring of nastiness in it. I wonder if you could bear to look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autism_epidemic. I ask because you did close that first one, and because there is a pattern which was established there, and is if anything worse in the current reference. I don't think it is an effective way of making an encyclopaedia. Midgley 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you may remember, I got beaten up pretty good about that one [3]. Surely you're not suggesting I make the same mistake twice? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I lost sight of that re-opening, which seemed to be that someone wanted everyone to suffer a bit more, and the cost and effort to be maximised, despite agreeing that the outcome was not in doubt. Your colleagues showed balance. It struck me as odd. No, please don't close this one early, besides, 17:4 is nothing like where this one looks like heading. What is the record I wonder? No, I thought that the character of the discussion there might be taken as an isolated aberration by unconnected users if it was reviewed only by a closing admin who was not aware of a pattern or previous incidents. Plus for some reason I thought (and I see I'm right) that you might have a view on the article and the expanding cloud of articles. Midgley 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LightRailScreenShot.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:LightRailScreenShot.pdf. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a temp file, no longer needed. I deleted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer-I really don't know

re: Your query on 'Underconstruction' on Baby Boomer (s?) I've been trying to get back there all week just to check around as I'd a stack of edits crash on me with the new browser (Firefox) when I hit some errant HotKey combo that closed it down abruptly. That's no way to end an All-nighter edit session, but I was so disgusted and weary I needed to get some sack time. (Apologies on the Template, I'd forgotten using it. It gives me hope though that I was about done.) I was ticked.

In the iterim, this (article) matter below came up, and I had significant pressure to move it right along, thus the attempt to get other input as follows. I will make a point of visiting the boomer articles to see what I find and reconstruct what needs reconstructed--this evening, ~~even~~ next after deal with one other thing needing less examination, call it three hours tops-- I promise. I'll take the template out now, however. This looks unpromising! and Looks more promising, but browser or memory problem now!... trying to bounce me into my home page! D#%$#!!! So go ahead and remove, I'd better not try now. Anyone can edit under it and someone removed the temp header. I need to finish and close some stuff!

Sorry I can't be more precise, but there were about two solid hours of editing involved, and I can't be sure what I saved and what is unsettled. The last thing I did there 'For sure' was sort out redirects in Baby boom (redirect page) to Baby Boom (film) and Baby '''B'''oom, and am certain that at least was at least 95% checked.

Apologies for inadequate answer. I'm about done spamming any way, so one stop and I'll clean it up. FrankB 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

It's not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP cookie

It was the phone number vandal, see the deleted history, you Pepsidrinka and I were all falling over each other, and of course there was the browser cache problem, so it was all very confusing, but it is deleted from the history now. Prodego ^talk 03:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Stroke Scale

Hi. I'm curious why you speedied this article. Sure, it's badly written, but it doesn't appear to meet any of wp:csd, and a quick google search showed that it is real. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoySmith. It appeared to be nonsense the first time read it, so I deleted it. That was a mistake. When it re-appeared with better formatting, I read it one more time and decided to prod instead of speedying. I went to get the proper spelling of {{med-stub}}, but you beat me to it and gave me an edit conflict. -- PFHLai 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. -- PFHLai 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_12#Userboxes_in_Wikipedia:Userboxes.2FReligion and materials linked from there. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...but here is a true policy proposal I just found rather than an interpretation of deletion-related policy, which is currently driving the deletion trend in userboxes — Wikipedia:Userbox_policy. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Duck

Interesting that this building has spawned not one but two technical terms in different fields. See my edits. Ben Finn 16:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing something once about a hot-dog stand somewhere built in the shape of a hot-dog. I guess one might say "That hot-dog is a duck" :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Slocum

Hi Roy,

Thank you for your welcome and your very kind comments. (I am such a newbie I'm not sure if I am replying in the correct place.) This concerns my edits to the discussions of Fort Slocum & Davids' Island. Please, feel free to incorporate my comments into the article; I'm not quite sure how to do it myself, yet. I am comfortable with the standard, old-fashioned routines of scholarship & publishing but Wikipedia is a bit dizzying! I am writing a (small) book-length history of the island during its occupation by the Army, and would like eventually to spin off my discoveries into a Wikipedia article but that won't happen within at least a year or so. So along the way I am grateful for any help you or others might lend. Michael A Cavanaugh 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete Technologies

Hi Roy

Your arguments are perfectly valid as to why this article should be deleted. Indeed, I have always been a deletionist as far as pure listcruft is concerned and the article's opening statement was an attempt to combat such an accusation (although, as it has been pointed out, it is, in itself, unencylopaedic).

Thanks for the afd, anyway - I'll try harder next time ;-) Eddie.willers 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Python (disambiguation) revertion

Please refer to What Wikipedia is not section 3, Advertising. As you can see my modification was indeed appropriate for Wikipedia in that it was an article about a company in an objective and unbiased style. Removing it was inapropriate. Alshain01 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: three card monte

Looks like it. I would prefer you fix it since I haven't had much sucess fixing it myself thus far. Sorry about that Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Cruft

Based on your participation at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Russell, I thought you'd like to know that the AFD has been restarted and moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination), where you can vote on it a second time. JianLi 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WPVI-TV_Anchors JianLi 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Sacks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sacks.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct links

Hi roy - just further to your message you left me regarding adding links to an external website. How come commercial websites are linked in other areas of wikipedia without any problems? Have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas_Cup If you would rather I put a link into our dedicated America's Cup page then I will. I am sure it is a case of me getting my presentation right as we have much to contribute as an external link. Look forward to your next messages. DailySail out.

The disambiguation page Meow

Thanks for removing that link to Usenet that I added as part of my edit to Meow - by watchlisting the article, and viewing your change, I learned something. I had added it because I vaguely remembered that the MoS stated wikilinks on dab pages were appropriate if they might help the reader determine "what the article is about", (seeing as many people who come Meow might have no idea what Usenet is.) Well, my memory is worse than I thought. Turns out it says:

Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information.

On another note, your userpage is quite funny. I might award you some sort of humor thing, but I forget where to find the code, and I doubt you'd want it. Anyways, happy editing. Picaroon9288•talk 03:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciated it; thanks for the note. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Bot

The reason that my bot removed the category was a WP:CFD ruling that the category should be deleted Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AN-72-Farnborough2004-4.jpg

I hope you like it! Best regards -- Stahlkocher 17:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it! Thanks! When I took the two shots, I had a vague idea that they should be stitched together, but didn't have the skill (or software) to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use Autostitch. Its easy, just pick the images you want to stitch. And its free. Have a try at http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html -- Stahlkocher 09:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy D on Carowhina

Might the Carowhina page fit Wikipedia:Attack_page for speedy? (for that matter, if yes, might Dook university and University of New Jersey at Durham as well, 'cause I am trying to clean up our Triangle Neighborhood pages :) ) DukeEGR93 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Don't worry, I'm sure this will end up getting deleted. Waiting a few days for the process to run its course isn't going to kill anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm new to this whole "use process to make an encyclopedia better" thing but figured this was a nice controversial place to start! Thanks - DukeEGR93 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Navigation link

Hi, just thought I would let you know that the link you fixed on Celestial Navigation is still broken, at least it doesn't work from here. Cheers, KenWalker | Talk 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interesting, It works for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it works here now too, must have been a problem at this end. I guess I jumped the gun . . . KenWalker | Talk 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Shaw's proxy server

You put a block on 24.64.223.203 - this might be a reasonable thing to do, since it's one of Shaw's default proxy servers - but the message really should explain that this is the reason it's been blocked, and advise the user to disable proxy discovery in their browser if they want to edit.

I've added a note clarifying that people can create an account for themselves and get around the block that way. Please feel free to add anything to the note which you feel would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me, you win i'll behave

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RoySmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You're a dumbass!

Decline reason:

To 144.124.19.33 please make unblock requests on your own talk page, not that of the blocking administrator. -- Netsnipe ► 01:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.