User talk:RoySmith/Archive 1

Place Names
I disagree strongly with your renaming of the islands in Long Island Sound in the comma style. See Talk:City Island, New York. -- Decumanus 17:57, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Lighthouse Island
Thanks for pointing that out to me. You're quite correct, and I will change my vote. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion O'Keefe
Hi Roy, you'll notice on Votes for deletion/Kenneth O'Keefe my comment that it was a third party who wrote that statement, and that such a statement is easily verifiable on the internet. I presume this satisfies you. --Christiaan 09:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Christian. Thanks for the note. Yes, I did notice your comment on the VfD page. It's still my opinion that the page promotes a POV. Your user page says you helped organize the action with Ken, and you're clearly pushing to have the page kept, so it would appear that not only does it promote a POV, but it promotes your POV. I'm comfortable with my delete vote. --RoySmith 11:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It does seem odd that you are comfortable with a decision based on a reason that is now debunked. You may or may not be aware that the page on Ken O'Keefe cannot be my POV because I've never contributed to it. --Christiaan 13:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

False Friend
What is wrong with having a second definition to the phrase "False Friend"??? This is real and not nonsense! The only definition for that is about False Cognates in languages! Do you want me to put you in touch with fellow City Islanders or Bronxites who believe in this other definition?

Supercool Dude 03:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roy,

You should talk! You have Vandalised an number of my articles you Hypocrite! You are just as obnoxious as many other creepy City Islanders!

I created a article called Funnybone and someone destroyed it and redirected it! My Father says that nasty people like you are False Friends and you are to be ignored!

You are a Vicious and Malicious person!

Goodbye!

Supercool Dude 16:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Roy,

I am quitting Wikipedia for good.

I talked to Jimmy and he told me about the policy here about Vandalism and deletion and I decided that writing articles that are debased by others is a waste of time.

There is absolutely no point in starting an article if others are allowed to change the meaning of that article.

So many articles of mine were deleted that it is a pointless thing to do.

I will start my own Internet Encyclopedia that will not be subject to this bullshit.

Supercool Dude 11:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies for barging into the middle of your conversation, but I wanted to make two comments apropos to the above paragraph. First, Safari supports tabbed browsing too (ObMacHype).  Second, I think it would be cool if the VfD template, in addition to having a link to the article's VfD discussion section, also had a link to go directly to editing that section.  It would save one intermediate page load.  I'm not sure where the right place is to make that suggestion, but I figured you might know. --RoySmith 00:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (PS, if you reply here, I'll see it).
 * Barging is appreciated, I do it frequently to others and if you do it too I can claim it's common practice ;-). Yes, there are quite a few browsers that do tabbed browsing (there's even programs that make IE do it I gather). I just chose ones that had the best chance of being appropriate for Fledgeling (I don't know what OS he runs). The VfD suggestion does sound handy for us nominators, though I'm not sure if it's worth the extra clutter on the template for all those people who just read it. The appropriate place for discussing this would be Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion (or Template talk:vfd, but nobody ever goes there so you'll get a much smaller audience. --fvw *  00:49, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I don't think Roy's a bad person... Maybe that article you wrote was unappropiate. He has erased many of my additions to articles as well, but I agree that maybe they would ruin the original article. Or just maybe they weren't needed. I just wrote my first article and Roy messed up with it, but added it again, making it even better!

He appologized of course and I am happy of knowing what actually happened to the original article since I was surpriced to see that it was changed. I think it is better now. Erase this addition if you want. But I just wanted you to know what I thought.

bye. 201.145.99.216 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Beatriz Montaño

Great Googly Moogly
Hi. After you posted the VfD for Great Googly Moogly, I really got into it and did a fair amount of research and editing work. I agree that in its original state it wasn't worth keeping, but it's a completely different article now. Would you take another look at it and see if you think it's worth keeping in its current state? --RoySmith 18:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Pfft, it took some heavy pondering, but I've landed on the keep side of the line, though only by a hairs breadth. May I suggset you move the first line/paragraph down to the end though? After all, it is no longer the main topic of the article. --fvw *  23:27, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree about the first paragraph; I'll take care of that now.  --RoySmith 01:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bell Ringing Swans
Dear Roy,

Here is my letter to Wells England.

Hello,

I am doing research for an encyclopedia to find out if there really are Mute Swans that ring bells for food.

Some say that the Swans there do not ring the bells any more.

Do the Swans there still ring bells for food?

Sincerely

Supercool Dude



Dear Supercool Dude,

Yes they certainly do - one pair. Check our website - www.bishopspalacewells.co.uk

http://www.bishopspalacewells.co.uk/wildlife.asp

- info@bishopspalacewells.co.uk

Marian Shaw

Please email her if you want the truth or go see them for yourself!

Supercool Dude 15:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dude, I'm glad to see that you've decided to come back to Wikipedia, and thanks for doing the research. You should update Talk:The Bell Ringing Mute Swans with your new information. --RoySmith 16:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Getalis' Height Project
Many thanks for your encouraging words. After some soul searching, I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of whiners currently attempting to kill my height project aren't after me personally. They're just afraid of new ideas that push the bill. Why a simple series of articles defining certain heights, cataloguing the percentile standards of said heights, and providing a brief list of (often surprising!) well-known people of selected statures offends them so much is something I will never, ever comprehend. To be sure, you'd never find that sort of thing in a paper-bound encyclopedia, but neither then would you find entries on ROM hacking or 2004.

Regarding your formatting suggestion, I just can't win! I originally just used X'X", since I figured that would be one of the most common ways someone would search for a specific height. A compatriot suggested the X ft X in (X.XX m) format, which I felt looked more professional. So, I soon adapted that standard for every page other than 6' 2".

In your estimation, if I were to do a special heights page, what would be an acceptable starting threshold? 6'6"? 6'7"? Right around there is the 2-meter mark, which has come up a few times among the more cogent replies on my nine Vfd pages. Cheers, and thanks again for your support! Getalis 01:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Woo?
You're right. Wu or Woo is a transcription based on Mandarin. Surnames in Hong Kong and transcripted based on Cantonese. Wu or Woo in Hong Kong do not correspond to the same surnames in Chinese characters as Wu as transcripted from Mandarin. &mdash; Instantnood 15:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome. :-D Should I put up a link to list of common Chinese surnames? &mdash; Instantnood 18:58, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

That fantastic photo
That photo you took of Central Park with the Gates from 2000ft. above is just so great. Would you consider putting it or one like it on the New York City page too? I think it would be a good addition. Moncrief 01:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be honored to have it on the New York City page. Feel free to do so (I haven't quite figured out how to work with images on wiki). It could probably use some touching up too, to enhance contrast, but I'm really not much of a photoshop wizard. --RoySmith 01:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll put it there. It's better than nearly everything on there now, and it gives such a sweeping and clear view of the park/the UES/the UWS/ and into midtown.  Moncrief 06:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. I added it to the NYC page after cropping it a bit (though I didn't want to crop it so much that the Met would disappear) and uploading it. If you don't like the caption, the placement or anything else - obviously, please feel free to change it! I gave you credit on the page where I uploaded it.  If I took to much liberty in cropping that bit of window off, I will delete it. (I just reread above and realized you didn't really give me explicit permission to re-upload it, so honestly, please tell me if you don't like the new crop - I just thought a little less of the window would be good, but I can definitely delete and you can use your version!)  Thanks.  Moncrief 06:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. The window was indeed badly placed, and your crop helped. What really annoys me about the shot was that it was a hazy day, and the colors came out a bit muddy, especially down at the south end of the park. I doubt there's much that can be done to fix that in post-processing, but maybe some photoshop genius out there knows how to do it better than I do? --RoySmith 13:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NYC "unacceptable w/o justification" edit summary
The user Funnyhat had made a series of edits, none of which had an edit summary. The first few were just style fixes, but the last few changed the substance of the article in ways that should have been explained in an edit summary, but weren't. I reverted those last few. (Sorry, the 'subsequent' is confusing, I should have said "funnyhat's edits after this need justification") best, jdb &#x274b; (talk) 15:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good editing
Thanks for your work on Anne Hutchinson. I appreciate it. Logophile 22:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't Panic
How ironic that this would be the user to put something in about a J/24 in the "DON'T PANIC" (Don't panic) article. Anyway, you should know that J/24's aren't notable unless they're from Santa Barbara. --Theaterfreak64 23:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. It was blatent vanity :-)  --RoySmith 00:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and sorry I posted that on your userpage. I don't know if I qualify as a "newbie" (been on Wikipedia since December 2004), but I'm not too familiar with userpages; I forgot. --Theaterfreak64 02:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * No biggie, don't worry about it. Do you also have a J/24?  In Santa Barbara, perhaps? --RoySmith 11:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hah, I WISH. I do live in Santa Barbara (Goleta, actually).  I'm certified by the ASA in basic keelboat sailing, but I hardly ever get out on the water.  --Theaterfreak64 02:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Devil's Belt
You are probably correct that this article should be merged with Long Island Sound. As my interest in the article was only in sorting, I will let you have the honors. --Allen3 talk 18:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Bedford Park (Neighborhood)
Just trying to find some folks involved in Bronx-related pages, that I've submitted an article on the neighborhood of Bedford Park. This happens to be my first article (though I've done some edits here and there on started ones), so I'm just curious if there's anything that a more experienced eye could notice there.--Daniel 05:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand you, Roy
I do not understand why you reversed the Vandalism done to my User Page. You have gone way, way, out of the way to delete much of my work here and that makes you a Vandal in my book. I just do not understand. Are you taking medicine for Schizophrenia? Keep taking it! I hear it works. I do not understand why you went hogwild and defaced so many articles I did here and then you undid the evil work of that obnoxious lowlife. You do not make any sense. My Swans are missing. I am worried about Audrey the Talking Mute Swan. Have you seen them?

Supercool Dude 19:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you!
Not one word of what you say.

Supercool Dude 29 June 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Possesive plurals
I saw your correction to Write Only Memory. I couldn't decide if Electronics was plural or singular since it refers to a magazine. e.g. one would say "Electronics is a monthly magazine" (singular). But the possessive does seem to read less awkwardly as a plural. Anyway, I reworded it to avoid the whole problem. &mdash; Pburka 29 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)

Stepping Stones Lighthouse
Thanks, no I didn't take it myself. It's a public domain (I believe) picture from the CostGuard. --Duk 30 June 2005 12:34 (UTC)

Jack disambig page
Regarding Jack becoming an exhaustive list I don't really see a problem with that, I have always thought of an encyclopedia of being an exhaustive reference ... but if it is not according to the manual of style so be it. With respect to the entries for Jack, and your stance on this, I see a car jack as having at least the same status as a jack(connector), it has more status than Jack in the Box (chain of restaurants) or even Samurai Jack. I wonder who in the world has even heard of these or needs to. As for not having an entry in Wikipedia for car jack, well that's easy fixed. I also think that your edit of Union Jack inappropriate and incorrect, I had it nailed in one sentence. It is not necessarily the UK flag ... refer to the Wikipedia's own page on this. Sorry to appear overly narked, no offense. Solander 5 July 2005

GNAA
I agree with your sentiment on GNAA voting page. Thought I should point this out to you:. Fuzheado | Talk 23:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, I saw it. Sigh.  There's a big gap between enduring something's existence on principle and showing it off as the best we can offer.  RoySmith 00:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD
WP:WIN a democracy, articles are deleted by consensus, making that the deleting admin makes a judgement call, and experienced users who are often admins get more weight than non-admins. Dunc|&#9786; 16:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! -- BD2412 talk 22:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

DN & T-cells
If I were just looking for an article on T cells, I would be unlikely to type DN, but if I typed DN into the search box, it would almost certainly be because I had encountered the abbreviation in something I was reading, and wanted to know the meaning relevant to T cells. Given that immunology is of wider interest than ice boats, this seems likely to become the most common reason for looking at the DN entry, once Wikipedia gets to the point of being a good overall science reference. Thanks for the change of minus sign. The &amp;minus; definitely looks better. --dsws 12:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes_for_deletion/List_of_biomedical_terms
Tony, I think your comments on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/List of biomedical terms are way out of line. If you thought the articles should have been kept, you should have made your arguments during the VfD. Instead you acted unilaterally, declared yourself above the rules, and resorted to profanity and ad hominem attacks. Surely you can find a way to say, "I disagree" that's less inflammatory than describing other people's actions as "mind-numbing stupidity"? RoySmith 11:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

On Talk: List of biomedical terms? Fair enough. Though the context was that if others don't agree with me then there is no point in pursuing it. I would not have taken the step I did unless I believed that deletion in this case would be universally recognised as an act of "mind-numbing stupidity." Although I still don't understand why the list is viewed as even remotely deletable, and I believe that deletion of such articles seriously damages Wikipedia (asinine, stupid, imbecilic, moronic, an act of such gross ignorance as to beggar belief, choose your epithet), if this is a minority view then I was obviously wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I just did a rough vote count, and came up with 10 Delete, and 6 variations on Move/Merge into Wikipedia namespace. There was also one unsigned comment from an anonymous user in favor of keeping. I don't see how you get from 16 of 17 people voting to remove the articles to assuming the opposite course of action would be universally recognized as being better. People expressed their views as to why it was a bad list on the VfD page; I won't repeat them here. You're free to disagree with those reasons, and to argue against them with vigor if you feel strongly about the issue, but the proper time and place would have been during the VfD period. In any case, it should be done with decorum and civility. RoySmith 12:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that my notes on the VfD talk page and the user talk page of the closer were civil, and that I have expressed my resignation to consensus with decorum. I could perhaps have been more diplomatic in describing what I regard as an extremely damaging deletion, but if I didn't think the deletion  was utterly indefensible I wouldn't have taken the step I did.


 * We don't really go by votes on Wikipedia, so the number of votes in the VfD is only a guide. If 10 people votes to delete Main_page in a VfD and 6 voted to move it, we'd simply undelete or unmove if it was altered as a result of the VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Roy, good job on getting the List of biomedical terms deleted. I truely believe such lists have no part in wikipedia at this stage of its evolution. It was the right thing to do. My personal opinion is that we should be focusing on filling the holes and correcting the mistakes, not increasing the number of redirect pages (there is time for that later).

I have students that have used this resource and they get led astray by the incorrect information here. i believe wikipedia has an important role for education in the future. We must not forget quality of information is more important than having links for every possible keyword. Thanks for your help. David D. 22:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. It's a shame it seems to have generated so much controversy; that was not my intent!  BTW, I saw your note about List of medical topics.  Now that looks like a very useful resource!  RoySmith 23:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like the List of medical topics I had nothing to do with it but found it when I was deleting the links to the List of biomedical terms. Interestingly, only four pages actually linked to the list and all of them also linked to better resources. I then realised that there are a lot of resources for people in wikipedia trying to find a niche and start new articles.


 * I would not call my self a deletionist but I believe wikipedia needs to avoid a situation where it is cluttered. David D. 23:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

talking swans
Whats the deal with the talking swans and superdude? It looks like he has referenced his own yahoo group as evidence for this Swan. You've had experience with the Swan issues before, what would you recommend? David D. 00:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

PythonMOO
I am strongly against your vandalism and deletion of PythonMOO. Rather than putting it for deletion, why didn't you try to improve it. Many people had edited this article before you targeted it, and I had myself labelled it a stub. Rather than going around destroying articles and links to them maybe you could help EXPAND Wikipedia, rather than making it a ghost town besides any articles that you personally find of interest. I have had many people come to me saying it was of great interest, including a university lecturer, and now once more you have contributed to the limiting of information to Wikipedia. You obviously didn't even read the article properly, since you referred to it as a website, whereas it was actually about MOO's, and there is a huge difference in those two things. As it said in the article, the website was only an interface, and could not be used for access to the MOO itself. Personally I feel you are vicious and obnoxious, and I am sure many others feel the same, there is an edit button for a reason, and you could have helped bring the article to a higher standard, but instead you choose to remove a resource for others. PythonMOO is a completely different MOO compared to many others, and it is notable so others can reach it and explore for themselves. But you thought that as you wouldn't ever want to reach it, neither would others. I feel your timely removal from the Wikipedia community would be a turn for the better. -- Kipper2258 11:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

--

19:04, 10 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Moo (conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)) (top)

18:56, 10 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Python (disambiguation) (reorder entries per Manual of Style)

18:43, 10 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 July 10 (PythonMOO)

18:42, 10 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PythonMOO

Interesting how your first actions were to remove all links to the page, rendering it unreachable, and this should have been done after the removal dispute had been settled, you didn't even put it up for discussion on the articles 'discussion' page, but instead drove to leave all but your friends uninformed, so it was unreachable to others who may have chosen to keep it -- Kipper2258 11:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing party. -- PyhtonMOO is an old concept brought back to life, now all it needs is a bit of advertisment and information so people can discover PythonMOO and use its new capabilities. Have we seen you on this??? NO so why dont you check it out next time before you decide its useless (including your gang of friends). Splinter98 82.46.92.242 11:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, I am sorry that (both of) you feel this way. The VfD ran for quite a while; there was plenty of time to make your arguments then, and/or to improve the article.  I have no doubt that some advertising would give PythonMOO more visibility, but advertising is very much not what Wikipedia is all about. BTW, the mention on Vandalism in progress was a nice touch.  RoySmith 15:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Amtrak (note spelling :-)
I don't know how to refer to the edit like you did, but I see what you mean about the sentence structure. I fixed it. --Plaws 18:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

PythonMOO
I have speedied the recreated article as a substantially identical copy of previously deleted material. --Allen3 talk 18:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * As you requested at Votes for deletion/PythonMOO, I have restored the most recent version of the article before it's first deletion. You may see the restored copy through the articles revision history. --Allen3 talk 09:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

""My talk page""
Please stop deleting items from my talk page. --RoySmith 17:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not spam the CSB task template


 * I am entitled to remove my own additions am I not? Also I thought the CSB task pane *was* for tasks, obviously I was decived - But mainly I will not have you talk to me in that tone. Kipper2258 17:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Bronx PE Table
Hi, The background color of the first column indicates the county winner. That's what the 1956 row adds. See Queens, Nassau or Staten Island.

And sorry for the spelling, once again, I'm not an English speaker.--Revas 16:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The effect is really subtle. I suspect most people would never guess that was the case.  May I suggest you re-think how you're presenting the data so it's more clear what it means?  --RoySmith 17:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it's clear in competitive counties, where both parties won elections, but that's true it's not very obvious in The Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan. That's why I try to expand them until I find a Republican victory there.--Revas 17:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that a similar table is clear on another page doesn't help a reader of the Bronx page. I think either the format of the table has to be improved, for some sort of explanation has to be added.  As it is, it's just confusing.  --RoySmith 17:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe. If you have any idea who may help us to improve it, feel free to speak out. But I think the best way to improve it and to make readers understand the table is to keep on searching a Republican victory.--Revas 17:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambig
Thanks for your comments and help! Joshbaumgartner 16:47, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

A request to u
Due to the continous vandlism of User:Truth aspirant-- the article Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman has become a ‘business-propaganda-feature’ rather an ‘encyclopedic article.’ Just see history of the article [[Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman  and Talk:Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman page--You are requested to take intrest in this serious editorial issue and make things straight in this global phenomena (Wikipedia). Thanx. Wiki4u

Triangular distress pattern not valid?
You appear to have deleted the following excerpt from the Distress_signal entry:

An aircraft with wireless communication problems can fly a triangular pattern by making 120° turns every 1 or 2 minutes to indicate the problem. A series of left-hand turns is used to indicate a complete failure, while a series of right-hand turns is used to indicate that the aircraft can receive, but not transmit. An aircraft can also indicate distress by making four drops of chaff at 2 minute intervals. Both procedures can be seen from a radar and thus used to alert the air authorities.

Please have a look at and  and consider reinstating the piece you deleted. If the procedure is no longer valid, please indicate so in the article, providing an appropriate reference. Many thanks, Diomidis Spinellis


 * My assertion that triangle patterns and chaff are outdated are based on my personal experience -- I am a commercial rated pilot, and flight instructor. Nowhere during any of my training was it ever suggested to me to use either of those methods in case of a radio failure.  My experience is limited to flying civil light aircraft in the US; it may be possible that other places in the world, or the military, teach other procedures.  The standard reference for stuff like this in the US is the Airman's Information Manual.  --RoySmith 12:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Disambig messes
Roy, hi - good to see you cleanup jack - I have found so many disambig pages that look like dogs breakfasts (ok I come from western australia, hope the vernacular travels) that I have been jumping in and trying to put categories/clumps to make it more readable. is that ok? does it conform to the rules to try to sort out and put headings? vcxlor 13:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

DoYouDo
Hi Roy, I was wondering why you wrote that DoYouDo was spam. Doesn't spam denote that it is advertising for a product or company? I wrote the article to inform, not advertise. I think that it falls outside the criteria of Spam. Notability is another matter. 205.217.105.2 18:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I retract my statement above. 205.217.105.2 21:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I really don't like people deleting stuff from my talk page, whether it's their own stuff or not.  I guess I'm OK with the strikeout, but when you struck your stuff out the first time, you put the markup around the section head too, which messed up the table of contents and made it look like you had deleted it again.  By the time I figured out what had gone wrong, I was starting to get annoyed at the whole mess.  This whole thing is strange.  I notice that somebody deleted a whole bunch of comments from Articles for deletion/DoYouDo as well.  Deleting text from talk/vote/discussion pages, even if it's completely innocent, tends to get people suspicious about what is going on. Even more so when it's being done by anonymous users.  --RoySmith 03:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is pretty sad, I have to admit. A lot of work goes into articles, and people assume bad faith (that it's spam, etc.). I don't really mind what was said on that AFD, it was just the way people said it (calling it "crap" and so on). Let's just forget it. Sorry about the frustration. 24.54.208.177 04:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Not Fair
Please, Roy I don't agree with you erasing my signature from the artice I worte I want my signature back I wrote that article, OK? I know I'm new here but hey! It's copyright me if you know what I mean and I would like people knwoing that I worte it!! Put it back! I like updating wiki and all... but I'll quit if you keep making this to me. 201.145.99.216 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC) by Betty Montaño

Then If you want to erase my signature erase my whole article, please, I'm quitting Wikipedia. Really, PLEASE. Erase my article. 201.145.99.216 22:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC) by Betty Montaño

I signed it again right before reading your comment on why you erased it. I don't like it. Erase my article. NOW! 201.145.99.216 22:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) by Betty Montaño

The Last
Ok, Roy, my article is not there anymore. Thanks for the "help" anyway. Bye.

Thanks
Thanksfor helping me edit the last article I updated. Ok... I g2g... bb!

--201.153.69.152 13:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) LaloRmz.

Central Park
Hi. Can I ask how you (or the pilot) managed to take a photo of this after 9/11 and at such a low altitude. Normally such things at a low altitude are considered no-fly zones? (Image:CentralParkWithGatesFrom2000feet.jpg) — Thanks — Kilo-Lima 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you liked the picture. I was flying, my wife was taking the picture.  The area around New York (like around all of the biggest airports in the US) is what they call Class B Airspace.  In a nutshell, that means you can go in there, but you need to get a clearance from Air Traffic Control.  The procedure is to contact them on the radio, identify yourself, and request clearance for whatever you want to do.  The controller then issues you a radar identification code, gives you specific instructions for the route and altitude you're allowed to fly, and tracks you on radar.  Depending on how busy they are and what other traffic is in the area, they may or may not be able to grant you the clearance you request.  In this case, I was lucky, and ATC allowed me to fly right over Central Park.  Sometimes (such as during the recent UN meetings or when some VIP is in town), things get a lot more restrictive, and it's impossible to get anywhere near the area. --RoySmith 21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah... I see. Thank you very much, --Kilo-Lima 13:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

England (disambiguation)
Can you explain the rationale behind the reversion of 'England' to a 'European country' with no reference to the United Kingdom, as well as the removal of the 'misuse' section?

The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help clarify what people are looking for. I believe both these edits made this clearer without getting into detailed explanation.

England is, like it or not, politically a part of the United Kingdom, and whilst it may be a 'nation', its political position is as part of the UK. To leave this out is to suggest otherwise.

It is also frequently misused as synonymous with England, which warrants disambiguation.

If you disliked the way they were phrased, please suggest something better.

Fourohfour 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your note. The reason I removed the text was because it wasn't necessary.  The reason for a disambiguation page is to help the reader quickly pick which of several entries with similar names they were after.  The information about England being part of the UK, and the relative size and population, and the misuse of the name, is  all interesting, useful, important, etc,  but it belongs in the England article, not on the dab page.  I must confess I'm not an expert on UK politics.  If calling England a nation is incorrect, by all means, please replace it with a more accurate word.  Does country or state work better?  Perhaps it would be better to say England, a part of the United Kingdom?  In any case, I don't see any reason to include the bit about how the name is used erroneously, at least not here on the dab page  --RoySmith 21:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you're getting at; I appreciate the disambig isn't the place to go into detail. However, I believe that the naked 'England' without its UK context is slightly misleading.
 * (The 'nation' within a nation business isn't clear, even to me; you start getting into technicalities vs. the feelings of the people, and the disambig certainly *isn't* the place for that discussion :-) )
 * The misuse of 'England' vs. 'UK' is also common, and I feel warrants its own entry, as in that case what people really want is the 'UK'.
 * Personally, I don't think the part about the 'largest and most populous' part is too much, but OTOH it's not essential for the disambig either.
 * Anyway, I'll stick something about this on the discussion page to see what people think.
 * Fourohfour 10:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  19:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the adminship.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   19:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Thanks too, to all those who supported my janitorial aspirations. I shall endeavor to wield the mop with dignity and try not to slop too much dirty water on the floor. --RoySmith 20:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet?
Hi, Since you've become an admin, I've got a nice question for you :-)

This user 211.245.243.189 appears to be the same as this user Mirmo!. The user appears to have started contributing anonymously from the same IP address in response to edits and reversions to their own contributions.

Some of the abbreviation contributions are obviously garbage. I don't have a problem with people whose English is less than perfect contributing (if it's factually interesting, that can be fixed), but given the nature of this user's previous contributions, I'm erring on the side of assuming that most of them are phoney abbreviations (i.e. not used), not abbreviations in common use in English, and that when it comes to English usage, he/she/it doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

Is it acceptable to say, "I think you are Mirmo" on the user's talk page, and is this (mis-)use of anonymous accounts by registered users cause for concern?

Fourohfour 11:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't get too worked up over it. Things like that happen all the time.  I don't see that it does any harm in asking the user(s) if they're both the same person, but I'm not sure there's much value in it either.  I try to judge each edit on its own merits, and not by who made it.  --RoySmith 12:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, although given the bulk of this user's worse-than-useless disambig edits, it's probably fair to say that if the previous 9 were transparently nonsense, then it'd tip the balance if I wasn't sure about the 10th. Fourohfour 12:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

John Spargo
Hi. I restored John Spargo. I'm curious why you thought it was speedy delete material. --RoySmith 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies. The original deleted article had the text "John Spargo was a muckraker." and the recreated version seemed to be making a similar personal attack (WP:CSD A6).  Rereading it I can see that it was likely not (at least in its current form.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks. --RoySmith 21:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

BywaveLabs
Thanks for deleting my page I did not know it was against the rules to post it up What about my edit up "open source" was that ok?

Thanks


 * Please see the reply I left for you at User talk:144.132.181.252 --RoySmith 01:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Foot-in-the-door_technique
I've expanded this article to make it more WP-worthy and would be interested to hear your thoughts on it. --Last Malthusian 13:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Misc dab
Your answer is located in Category:Miscellaneous disambiguations. --SuperDude 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RfA. I will use my new powers wisely! --Wikiacc (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool
Lupin|talk|popups 00:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks cool, I'll check it out. Thanks!  --RoySmith 00:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi Roy, to archive, I just create a new page at Talk:Pagename/archive1, and copy and paste what can be archived. So yea, no magical tool involved. As you know, the /archive1 part creates a subpage which makes a link on the archive page back to its parent. :-) Neonumbers 22:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Roy!
Lets see you delete this!

It was copied before deletion! LOL!

http://the-bell-ringing-mute-swans.geekopedia.ipupdater.com/

I now posess videotapes of Audrey the Speaking Mute Swan of City Island, actually talking!

I am in the process of copyrighting and getting an agent and maybe I'll sell the video to TVs highest bidder.

When I get my money for it I will show it to you right here.

I cannot show it yet, because I need the money.

Audrey now has four Cygnets. She nested at the marsh at Rodmans Neck Range.

Supercool Dude 22:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear about the cygnets, and I'm looking forward to seeing your tape. --RoySmith 23:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)