Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoySmith (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 7 December 2006 (→Chine Picture Addition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1, Archive 2

Red links

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

Your vote to delete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ummm... why did you delete?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chine Picture Addition

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

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