User talk:RoySmith/Archive 4

Archive 1,  Archive 2, Archive 3

Kind of a snotty attitude there today, eh? All I saw was an IP address edit making an uncalled for edit w/o making any comments as to why. I personally don't care whether the artile uses maritime or layman's terminology. You'r edit is fine, as is your explanation, but you could temper your attitude as I'm personally offended by the tone of your comments. Dennis (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to be offended. I just explained why I eliminated use of the word.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Anuthin Wongsunkakon
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anuthin Wongsunkakon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Anuthin Wongsunkakon. Deb (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I agree it's a badly written article, but I found sufficient stuff about him that I don't think prod is justified.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sparx Enterprise Architect
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sparx Enterprise Architect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sparx Enterprise Architect. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates. This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan postponed to Friday April 4th
All other details remain the same. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan! Friday
You MUST MUST MUST register here by Thursday 8 PM EST, if there is any possibility you plan on participating or coming to the party that night. By the way, the party has been moved to 11:30 PM instead of 11:00 PM.--Pharos (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, the real world has interfered -- an appointment came up at work that I cannot miss tomorrow, so I won't be able to make it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts). This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Panix
Whoops, sorry about that. I somehow misread the article and interpreted it as saying Panix was defunct...thank you very much for catching my error. nneonneo talk 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Snug Harbor Cultural Center
I failed to find your old article, and put up a new one, instead. Snug Harbor, Staten Island. I then discovered your page and copied some of your material onto my new page. Please stop by your original page and join the discussion about which page to keep, what the title shouls be, I would perfer plain Snug Harbor also , the page could use someone active in the Cultural center to add up to date material. perhaps you know someone. It is such a spectacular place, it deserves a better page. And it also needs good photos. I would vote for the fountain and that amazing row of Greek revival fronts, like th ephoto on the NHS Page.Elan26 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * I have a little time this afternooon, but I am not moving material from any wikipedia article. I am adding material on sung Harbor.  When there is a concensus on which article to keep, someong can shift thhe material form whichever page.Can you enlighten me, however, by telling me why it matters?  From my perspective, the best thing would be a page named Snug Harbor, to make it easy to  find on a searvh.Elan26 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * It mostly matters because it keeps the edit histories correct. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Melville
Howdy. I realise the two articles were about different people of course, but the one on Thomas Melville was an obvious copyright violation of this. Normally I'd have tagged it for speedy deletion as WP:CSD (I seem to remember tagging a couple of similar articles which were lifted from the same site), but in the absence of an article on anyone called Thomas Melville the page might as well be a redirect to Thomas Melvill as it's a plausible typo/misspelling, so I just went ahead and redirected it. At the time I wasn't particularly inclined to rewrite the Melville article in my own words as it was entirely unreferenced and it wasn't obvious that he was a particularly noteworthy activist, but doing a bit more looking around the website it was taken from, I see that there probably is some notability, so if you'd like to recreate the Melville article as a non-copyvio I have no objection. Best Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Making a title point to the wrong place certainly didn't solve any problems. I found this when I make a link to Thomas Melville, and was surprised when I discovered where it pointed.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirecting alternative or incorrect spellings is common practice - indeed actively encouraged - so in the absence of an article on anyone called Thomas Melville, a redirect to Thomas Melvill is perfectly reasonable, and the sort I routinely create when I write a new article (though I should have checked "what links here" and sorted out any back links - my fault for forgetting that). Sometimes several people have the same name and this is an occasional source of confusion - there's not much we can do about it. The person you've just written a stub on seems to be a completely different person from the one the article was originally about, so the link would have been surprising whether or not I'd redirected it. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

disambigulating
Do you know how to put up disambigulation pages? Brit Shalom (political organization) Brit shalom (naming ceremony) Brit Shalom, Easton, Pennsylvania need disambigulating, since anyone looking for any of them is likely to be looking simply for "Brit Shalom"Elan26 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26
 * It's not rocket science. I set up a Brit Shalom dab page for you.  More information about dab pages can be found at Disambiguation and MOS:DAB.  The key thing to remember is that you should give just enough information to let the reader quickly find which entry they are looking for.  In this case, the article names are clear enough that no additional information was needed.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank youElan26 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26
 * Hi. I put a note on Elan26's talk page on this topic. Station1 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Priestly blessing / incomplete tag
Um, I changed the header just to alert those perusing the contents that there was an explanation for why the article was tagged incomplete. That's allowed on a talk page, yah? Ellsworth (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about allowed vs. non allowed, but it was confusing to me when I read the diff. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
for your advice on easy edits of refs. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT


 * Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
 * Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project


 * 349 W. 12th St. #3
 * Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
 * By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,
 * Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4
Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Defunct prisons Category edits
Hi there, sorry, I should have put edit summaries in, will do from now on. I'm reclassifying old prisons into various Defunct prisons categories, but ive pretty much finished now.

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Red October
I don't really see that as a problem, but I guess it is always possible to make it into a separate section (kind of like you did, only it should be titled "see also"). If that works for you, feel free to do it that way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:58, May 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you've seen this comment of mine; I'm copying here just in case. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, May 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey F. Bell
I think it is wrong to delete an article without any kind of advanced warning. Just beacuse a page has been previously deleted does not mean that it can not be re-created at a later date. I ask that you restore the deleted article, and bring it to a discussion so a consensus can be reached on the deletion of the article. Rterrace (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll answer this on your talk page -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jeffrey F. Bell
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey F. Bell. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rterrace (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Roy
Hi Roy, I noticed a question here that you may be able to help with. Cheers — Ched : ?  19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * nevermind ...I see you're already on it. ;) — Ched : ?  19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

squid overlords
| It's something I found amusing/interesting and thought I'd pass it on.

--EGGman64 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/African admixture in Europe
Hi RoySmith,

I just wanted to discuss your recent deletion of the article. When an article is deleted, there is usually a stigma attached to it, so much so that extra effort is needed to prove that such an article should exist. So I pretty much understand that a lot of work will be needed to get the article recreated.

The reason you gave was that "The text is changed, and the two articles are organized somewhat differently, but they present essentially the same material." Just in case you are still interested, I believe the article was not actually the same. What has happened is that we have a content dispute and there are two polarized positions in this dispute. The first deleted article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe represented one side of the dispute, primarily the responsibility of User:Small Victory, the recent article African admixture in Europe, was created by me, with some contributions from User:Pdeitiker. To some extent, this represents the other side of the dispute. So the material in the article was actually quite different from the previously deleted article. In fact, the two articles are referenced from a completely different set publications.

You also mention that a requirement for recreation of the article is that the "topic cannot be adequately covered as a section of the existing Genetic_history_of_Europe". We will continue to work on the Genetic history of Europe, but if we include all the information from the deleted article, Genetic history of Europe, will no longer be about Europe, but about Africa as well. In other words, there is too much material to fit into Genetic history of Europe, without giving undue weight to this one section. Furthermore, we have more material waiting to be added to the article. Progress has only been stifled by a content dispute and disputes about civility Wikiquette_alerts. I am still interested in recreating the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC) One more issue, the AFD was not listed properly. I listed it for the first time today on Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 6, so the AFD didn't get community-wide exposure. This is why the AFD ran for 10 days instead of the maximum of 7 days. If I didn't notice, the page could have remained in limbo. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If one version represented your point of view, and the other version represented somebody else's point of view, then I would say that neither version probably complied with WP:NPOV. My conclusion that the two were essentially the same was based not on the point of view either was trying to make, but on the fact that both appeared to cover the same topics.  In any case, you don't need to convince me, you need to convince your fellow editors.  I suggest that you put your efforts into discussing the issues with them and coming to a consensus about what the article should say.  A useful technique might be to create a version as a subpage of your user page, inform your fellow editors (including those with whom you disagree) about it, and work collaboratively on it until you have a version that everybody can live with.  If you are unable to reach consensus, then maybe it's time to move on to working on some other article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to NPOV, as I have mentioned, the community was not given a chance to assess whether the last version had a POV bias as the AFD was not listed on the deletion log. There was no way for editors to know about the Afd, if they didn't stumble upon the article. The first article was deleted in part because of POV issues, so I had NPOV in mind when recreating the article. From my observation, only one editor who isn't a party to the dispute participated in the discussion and his suggestion was to keep the article. The previous AFD had a lot more independent editors weighing in. So I am not satisfied that the deletion process is complete. If the deletion process was thorough, then I would take your advice. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It got dozens of comments over the course of 10 days. That seems pretty thorough to me.


 * As I said before, I'm not the person you need to be trying to convince about anything.  The big issue here is not whether this subject should be covered in a stand-alone article or as a section of another one.  The big issue is that the various people who are working on this topic have not yet come to any agreement about what material should be presented.  That dispute needs to be resolved regardless of the result of this AfD.  You efforts would be more profitably spent working with your fellow editors to build consensus on what should be said on the subject.  My role was to resolve a minor procedural question.  You guys are the subject matter experts and have the far more interesting and important job to do.  I hope you can reconcile your differences and get back to editing, because this is an interesting article and I'm looking forward to you guys who know the subject matter making it even better.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dozens of comments were made but from the same editors who edit the article. That is equivalent to the content dispute. The purpose of listing it in the deletion log is to get input from a wider audience. I was disappointed that we did not get enough external opinions. Because the article wasn't listed correctly, I am thinking of listing it for deletion review. Of course, I don't want to, but I don't believe the AFD got a fair shake. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, welcome to go the DR route if you honestly feel I made a procedural error. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The error is not yours but the nominator's. But I don't think you have adequately taken it into account. Nonetheless Wapondaponda (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that the previous AFD was an example of an AFD gone wrong. The last few comments seem to be taking us down the same path again, as they are lengthy posts. We may need some guidance on refractoring comments on the AFD process. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to stop obsessing about the AfD and put more energy into building consensus with your fellow editors. There are really only two possible outcomes here.  One is that the AfD ends up with the article being kept.  In that case, you need to build consensus on what it should say.  The other possibility is that the article gets deleted.  In that case, you need to build consensus on what the section in the parent article should say.  Either way, you need to work with the other editors on building a consensus.  It seems to me that's where your energy should be devoted.  -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for African admixture in Europe
An editor has asked for a deletion review of African admixture in Europe. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this, and I thought it worth mentioning that I think it is connected to this discussion about an analysis technique called STRUCTURE which Small Victory keeps filling various talk pages with, supposedly because this is a subject other editors are not allowing into any article (not true) and this which is about a specific example of such material which Small Victory wanted in this and other articles, but which others felt strongly to be OR. I wanted to let you see the level of dead horse flogging and forum shopping going on. As you see on the most recent talk page discussion I am asking SV repeatedly to confirm whether or not the "concerns" about the African Admixture article which he wants to tag, are in any way separable from the same OR material he feels to be unfairly blocked by other editors. Ironically, he does not really want to define his "concerns" in this way. It all makes you tag removal, which repeated mine,, very justified in my opinion. Also see incident logs: ,.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Small Victory is not going to be able to reply to your talk page question for a while; I slapped a 1-month block on him. Yes, I'm quite aware of his editing history, etc.  I suspect that when the month is over, nothing will change, but we'll deal with that when the time comes.  In the meanwhile, you and the other editors have a month to work on these articles without the distraction he provided.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just curious,
Is it disruptive to relist articles for deletion?The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, no. But it is disruptive to relist an article two days after a deletion review was completed with the decision to endorse the immediately prior keep decision.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay ,I will not list that article for deletion for at least six months and if you want I will never list it for deletion.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN
Thank you. There's nothing more disheartening than observing, day in and day out, the struggles of editors on various pieces battling an individual who's gaming the system and then playing coy. The block of this user is welcome and overdue. I suspect you'll see a return by a similar name – The Cristo of Monte Count, perhaps – but my guess is this individual's unique 'style' will be easy to spot. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)