User talk:Scott MacDonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I, for one, think you made the right call. It takes some guts to stand up to the disruptive mob and tell them they are wrong. AutomaticStrikeout 13:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, Scott Mac, there you have it: almost everyone disagrees with you, but no one doubts your honorable intentions. Didn't we sign up for that shitty position when we accepted the bit? Happy days, and your barnstar is in the mail, Drmies (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The thing is I don't think they do disagree with me. Everyone knows the category is useless to Wikipedia, and just part of the battleground role-playing, but the blood-lust is up and that'll trump any amount of reason, so there's little point in arguing.--Scott Mac 23:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think it's useless or that I have no reason, but OK. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I do disagree with you Scott, and the "Everyone knows I'm right but won't admit it" approach is, as I have opined before, exceptionally arrogant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Boing! we've been through this before, and you were unwilling to answer my question as to how keeping this helps Wikipedia (hence I assume you know it doesn't). Your only stated reason on the CFD was "Keep. If the definition is good enough for a serving member of ArbCom, then it's fucking good enough for me.". While I can understand that as anger at JClemen's and the natural hot-blood of the conflict inherent in that answer (we've all known that at times), I can't believe you think that's a logical, policy based, reason for retention (you are obviously too bright for that - and you've not even attempted to explain it). Given that you won't give me any other reason, and you are continuing to put effort into keeping this category, I can only put it down to emotion rather than logic - and a refusal to elaborate on a reason you don't actually have. I can't see that as honest, but I can see it as understandable. Anyway, there's little point in going arround the houses again. I'm not sure why you are responding to me, given we both said we'd drop it.--Scott Mac 14:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
          • If you keep on insulting us all with your arrogant claim that we all really agree with you, then that's not dropping it, is it? And while you keep making such such arrogant claims, I will keep refuting them. Also, I have already told you that I would have been happy to discuss my opinions on the category at the deletion discussion, which was the proper place. But you imposed your own opinion there with a supervote and censored us - and I will not enter into discussions with self-appointed dictators according to *their* terms. Now, let me state something categorically, in a way that even someone as unwilling as you to respect the fact that other people have their own opinions should understand - WE DO NOT ALL FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU!!! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Oh, and I have already explained the reason for the wording of my comment at the deletion discussion - if you are too arrogant to listen to it, that's your loss. And it was *you* who prevented me from answering any questions there or expanding on my comment, so you've got a fucking nerve to complain it was my "only" comment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
            • I can see tempers are fraying, so calm discussion is probably pointless at this juncture. If I'd seen a reason (or could imagine there being one) I could respect that - but lacking it I can't. If it helps to blame my arrogance and lack of imagination, so be it. Doubtless I am, at times, guilty of both. Maybe we can discuss this again in a few weeks when the tempers over the whole arbcom thing calm - but I suspect, by then, no one will care much anyway (and rightly so). I've ceased to care already - people are entitled to be upset in a wiki-quarrel, and (with hindsight) I probably was foolish to have intruded into it.--Scott Mac 15:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
              • If you had allowed me to explain my reasoning in the proper place instead of censoring the discussion, then you would have it and we could be discussing it in a calm and friendly manner. But as I have made abundantly clear, now that you have censored discussion in the proper place, I am not going to proceed according to *your* terms. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
                • Oh for goodness sake, "censored"? Can we use such emotive language for those cases where speech is actually suppressed, and rights actually violated? It seldom has any place on Wikipedia, where everyone pretty much gets to talk to their heart's content. You won't give me a reason because you're pissed at me - fine. You are quite entitled to do that, as I am to draw my own inference (as if the lack of utility of the category wasn't obvious enough). Now, you are on my talk page. If you don't want to be "discussing it in a calm and friendly manner" that's fine, but I suggest there's not too much point in continuing to post here then.--Scott Mac 15:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • If you will cease abusing WP:AGF by claiming that I actually agree with you when I state categorically that I do not, then I will be happy to not post further on your talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • Given your unwillingness to discuss your rationale for believing this category useful to Wikipedia, and giving my lack of imagination as to what a reasonable rationale might be, I drew a reasonable inference, based on an assumption about your evident intelligence and emotional commitment, that you didn't actually have a reason to disagree with me, and were acting (understandably) from emotion and the heat pf the fray. If I've made a wrong assumption there, I appologise for whatever it is. I believe I was assuming good faith throughout. I have no problem with your posting here, I'm just questioning the point if you are declining to be "discussing it in a calm and friendly manner". --Scott Mac 16:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
                      • I'm happy to accept that, and in turn I apologize for being rude to you. You may think your inference was reasonable (and I can understand why you would), but it is in fact incorrect. I do have reasons for thinking that category is beneficial (temporarily), and in less confrontational circumstances I would be happy to discuss them with you - but as you rightly say, by the time those circumstances prevail there will no longer be any point. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
                        • When folks are upset, emotional, and unable/unwilling to give a rationale which they still claim they have - it is best not to try to reason with them any further. Ironically, when my kids do that (showing my age), my response is "time for bed".--Scott Mac 16:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
                          • I think we're both clearly too intransigent to make any further discussion fruitful right now, so I will take this page off my watchlist and will bid you goodbye. (As an aside, it's 20 years since I got to send my children to bed - though I do appreciate the quote) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
                            • I slightly resent being called intransigent here. Given reasons, I'm usually happy to engage in fruitful discussion. You are the one who declined to give your reasons and engage in discussion. That's your right, certainly - but, given that, I do see little point in you continuing to post. Night, night.--Scott Mac 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Scott, thank you for your effort to reduce the drama and bickering in this rather fraught situation. I am sorry the effort wasn't more successful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I didn't make matters worse. I assumed a "WTF? delete" would be endorsed by any uninvolved person - it seems that misunderestimated the level of people already high on the drama. Perhaps ignoring would have been better. --Scott Mac 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess there's not much else to say about this situation. Let's go have some tea instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Scott Mac 15:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC):
Maybe we can discuss this again in a few weeks when the tempers over the whole arbcom thing calm - but I suspect, by then, no one will care much anyway (and rightly so). I've ceased to care already

Hi Scott. I see in the deletion log (21:44, 28 November 2012) that you still care. Why do you care? The "and rightly so" part, implying a underlying strong conviction on the subject, concerns me most. Is it your considered opinion that incivilities should not be discussed, or that they should not be discussed in a centralised low-flow location? Is it OK tyhat extreme things are said on existing usertalk pages and noticeboards that are not easily subject to deletion. And is it OK that the deleted category remains functional but without header information? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Verschwinde.--Scott Mac 23:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kenneth Mackenzie (missionary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zomba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam McMurray AfD[edit]

Hi, I would invite you to reopen the discussion, as it appears you have closed the discussion the same day it was relisted, and, with respect, your close appears a supervote. Our guideline for actors require multiple notable roles, and McMurray was, among others, a regular in notable tv series such as The Tracey Ullman Show and Stand By Your Man and leading actor in A League of Their Own, had roles of weight in movies such as Raising Arizona and Stone Cold and TV-movies (for eg. check The Munsters' Scary Little Christmas, in which he is the lead actor). Google News (319 articles) and Google Books (2460 sources) provide tons of sources in support of the notability of his performances and make them appear easily verifiable. I will be happy to provide all the sources you need to verify the notability of his many roles in the relevant afd. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd missed the fact it was only relisted today, so on that grounds I will reopen it. Also on the grounds that you are someone coming to this fresh and your opinion deserves an airing. However, the notion that it was a supervote is a non-starter. Admins have to read the arguments and discussion and make a call as to which side is stronger - otherwise we're just counting votes and that's not it. The fact is that the nomination was on the grounds of notability. Notability is to be seen in lots of secondary, non-trivial, discussions of the subject. No one in the debate had indicated any evidence of such to refute the nomination. Uzma Gamal pretty much demolished the sources that have been provided. By the way, the links yu provide change nothing. Lots of mentions of him won't do - you'll need to show discussion of him and his role in those sources to demonstrate notability.--Scott Mac 17:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, we can keep on discussing on the relevant afd, at any rate you should consider not only the general notability guideline but also the specific guideline for actors, that is what we consider when an actor fails to pass GNG. I have never stated, nor above nor in the afd, that he passed GNG, I only stated he passed WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Anyway, thanks for the reopening. Cavarrone (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You'll need sources to say the roles are significant then. Anyway, all I'm saying is that the debate at time I closed it could only be closed as delete. It isn't a supervote, because I'm not offering an opinion, I'm assessing the evidence produced in the debate. If that changes now, the closure may well be different, whether I, or someone else closes it.--Scott Mac 17:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, sorry if I was wrong in saying yours was a supervote, but the fact you closed the discussion so prematurely made me to think so. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Try assuming good faith? "Supervote" unfortunately has come to mean, "a close with which I disagree, when the headcount seems to be in my favour".--Scott Mac 18:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Lol, I definitely assumed bad faith! :) Apologies again Cavarrone (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kudos for being willing to acknowledge that, and again my apologies for missing that the relist was so recently.--Scott Mac 19:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


2D 3D Animation Studio India AfD[edit]

May i know how the result of deletion discussion on 2D 3D Animation Studio India was deleted by you??? i think the result according to the consensus was in favor to keep the page.. then why you deleted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohdnaved (talkcontribs) 06:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

These things are not a vote, they are a discussion among Wikipedians to see whether the article meets our criteria for inclusion. In this case the nomination stated that the was not "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources". Nothing in the debate showed otherwise (personal knowledge and vague talk of search engines isn't evidnce) and the one website you provided is simply an old list and didn't seem to convince anyone). The few regular Wikipedias who too part all concurred with deletion. While people who are not regular Wikipedians are entitle to give their opinions, the debate is not a vote - it is a consideration of the community's policies and guidelines. The outsiders had no hard evidence to offer. I'm afraid consensus here does support deletion.--Scott Mac 13:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus?? whats the meaning of consensus on wikipedia? I understand it was not voting. But where it was written that everyone considered as evidence should be online?? i read it on wikipedia that it is not required to be an online evidence.. secondly two wikipedians deleted vote without any justification, bu just saying that company is not very notable.. i am afraid that they are not subject matter expert in animation, they their opinion is not more important that a person who is in industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.220 (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

see the policy on verification and the policy on sourcing. Personal knowledge isn't allowed. You need to provide independent published sources (off line, or available in print).--Scott Mac 10:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green[edit]

Hi, I see that you have hidden some revisions of the above page. There is some dubious material also on the talk page, if you or one of your admin stalkers could deal with it, please.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks.--Scott Mac 08:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. What are you doing back here anyway?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
No idea, it sucks as much as ever. I drifted off for six months after the SOPA fisasco, but you know...--Scott Mac 11:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
There is hope. I was admiring dogbertd (talk · contribs · count) the other day. Single figure number of edits this year; single figures for the second half of last year. If he were still interested in WP, he would deserve a co-credit when we nominate Richard Wagner for FA but I think he is going to succeed in avoiding a relapse.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of dubious music-spam[edit]

Do you have any thoughts on Future Legend Records? As with Raplogle, at first glance this looks like a significant label, but reading more closely it seems to be a long list of acts who recorded one or two songs for this label which failed to chart, and then either moved on to other labels or disbanded. There's some jiggery-pokery with citing different editions of the same book to make it look like multiple references are being used, but on closer inspection virtually every reference seems to be to a self-published book written by the company's CEO. (Someone is saying on the talkpage that there's no evidence of COI, but I find it hard to believe that User:AubreySimpson isn't "former D.J., record producer and songwriter Russell C. Brennan" or one of his associates, given the citations to "personal communication" in the article.) Mogism (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't my field at all - I do BLPs, but I know nothing about music (just ask my kids for verification). "Future Legend" does seem to be code for "currently unknown" (see also "up and coming"). However, they do seem to have been namechecked in some media, but only in passing. I'd suggest either contacting the music wikiproject and getting some informed folks to take a look, or risk a tentative AFD. I've done that before with a "I can't find anything but trivial mentions here, so I think this is a delete, but happy to withdraw if someone can find something solid".--Scott Mac 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I've asked at the Music project and will defer to their opinion. I'm really not sure where the line between "guy in a basement" and "indie label" is drawn. Mogism (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

SD g5[edit]

Would these articles Ralph Vito Perna, Anthony Santorelli and Joseph Lubrano pass the Criteria for speedy deletion "G5. Creations by banned or blocked users". I wanted to check before nominating.--Vic49 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never liked G5. I judge content on its merits not for its provenance, but others disagree. All of these articles have survived AFD (where I may well have voted to delete them) so I don't think speedy is an option. Anyway, it looks like the creator was not banned when they were created. If a featured article writer was banned, I doubt we'd feel compelled to remove all his contributions.--Scott Mac 18:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

I was starting in on rewrite/sourcing attempts on Doug LaMalfa, but I think you made the best decision - just rollback to a clean slate and rebuild from there. Way, way too much election-year posturing in there. polarscribe (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

List of pedophiles[edit]

As you seem clued-up regarding BLP issues, can I get a third opinion from you regarding List of pedophiles? Per discussion here, I think this is deeply problematic for a lot of reasons - confusion of the psychiatric disorder pedophilia with the overlapping but certainly not identical "convicted of sexual activity with a minor", impossibility that the list will ever be either complete or accurate, extremely high potential for vandalism and good-faith misuse with potentially serious repurcussions (ask Twitter how well the "we are only the medium not the message" defence is working out right now regarding untrue public accusations of sex-crimes...), the need for 24/7 admin monitoring for BLP issues. Normally, I would take something like this to AFD. However, this particular article was created by an editor who has a very vocal circle of supporters who attack anyone who nominates a page he's created for deletion, so an AFD would probably get nasty very quickly. Do you have any thoughts regarding how to handle this one? Mogism (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd have used a flamethrower, but it looks like Corn already did.--Scott Mac 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Vargas[edit]

Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it was previously proposed for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 19:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD on Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections[edit]

I don't mind it going to AfD too much. I think it is an interesting topic that could have a long term WP:EFFECT. I have thoughts on wanting to work with the article long term and make it a GA and then perhaps a FA. It seems like a challenge for such a controversial article. That said, one thing that was going to happen was an AfD. It happened, and so be it. Casprings (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Camacho[edit]

I appreciate you semi-protecting the article, but you may want to consider going to full protection. Editors are still reporting him dead without sources. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Politicized edit warring[edit]

You might like to review this little lot. There might be a flare up tomorrow. After all, isn't Sunday the day when everyone in the U.K. sits around and talks religion and politics? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Thankfully, in the UK only anoraks give a damn about by-elections. I'd not even registered there was one. I've watchlisted the unprotected articles - but I may be elsewhere tomorrow (doing religion, if not politics!).--Scott Mac 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012[edit]

I saw that Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 AfD resulted in a keep. I would invite you to look at the article again and provides some thoughts and edits that might move it towards being NPOV.Casprings (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You good-faith request indicates that you (in common with most keep voters) have not understood my deletion rationale. If I believed that this article could be moved "towards being NPOV", I would not have nominated it for deletion. We fix non-neutral articles, we don't delete them. However, I believe this article cannot be neutral - that is it is by its nature non-neutral. The title invites a selection of embarrassing things that one party's supporters said in response to a partisan objection. An article on "abortion as an issue in the 2012 election" could possibly be written, but you can't write a neutral article when the selection criteria for the article is a liberal trope. It is simply impossible - no matter how long or hard you try. It is for those keep voters, who insisted this is possible, to prove me wrong. I don't, for a moment, believe they can.--Scott Mac 09:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information[edit]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

St George's-Tron Church[edit]

Nice edits :) Springnuts (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an article that needs watching.--Scott Mac 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance please[edit]

You deleted the article on Paul Dirksen. I can not determine, from your entry in the deletion log, where the discussion took place as to whether the article on this individual should be deleted. Could you please point me to that discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't feign ignorance. As you well know I (and others) deleted a number of long-term unreferenced BLPs a while back. There was extensive discussion at the time - and the deletions were commended. However, to return to the article, I am always happy to undelete such articles on any request, if someone undertakes to source them. Many such articles have since been restored and sourced. Would you like me to restore this one for you to source?--Scott Mac 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
First, yes, please userify to User:Geo Swan/userified/2012-12-18/Paul Dirksen. I will either get it in shape for article space, or request {{db-u1}} by 2013-01-18.
Second, I am not feigning ignorance. I am unaware of this project to delete long-term unreferenced BLPs you mention above. I don't write unreferenced BLPs, so I don't know why you think I would be aware of your efforts. If you and your cohort maintained a discussion page, where you discussed your initiative, agreed on your criteria, I would have considered a pointer to that discussion as an answer to my question.
Dirksen was the author, or co-author, of something like a dozen computer science textbooks. The first of those textbooks, Fortran IV with WATFOR, was very influential, and sold over a million copies. I am curious as to why this didn't establish sufficent notability that the article did not qualify for deletion as WP:CSD#A7.
After your note I checked the history of your talk page to see if we had interacted before. Our last exchange on your talk page was over two years ago -- long enough for me to have completely forgotten about it and to have approached you for assistance from a clean slate. Now that I have reviewed it, it looks like you were going to either restore the deleted revisions to the Jacques Lanctôt article, or you were going to email me the deleted text.
I don't have a record of receiving that email. If there is still an authentication problem with your email, I would still consider restoring the deleted edits to the current article history acceptable. Geo Swan (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, happy to userfy it. Sorry if I wrongly assumed you were playing dumb. The history here is that I, and a number of admins, about three years ago, deleted a few hundred long-term unreferenced BLPs that had lacked referenced for about two or three years at that time. The whole endevour was done openly, and was the subject of numerous community discussion at the time - and indeed of an arbitration case. The deletions were for the most part upheld, on the basis that are articles lacked any references and could be undeleted if referenced. I'm afraid the brohaha was so public I rather assumed all long-standing Wikipedians would remember it - sorry if that was a wrong assumption. Notability didn't come into this. I've no view on the notability of the article. The contention was about the appropriateness about having information on living people which was unreferenced after a very long time. Community standards have changed since then, and BLPprod now deals with such articles - but this was all before that process came into being. Anyway, it is history now. The point is (like a BLPprod deletion) any of these can be reversed if someone will sort and source the article. I don't recollect the Jacques Lanctôt article, but I'll take a look at the matter and get back to you. Thanks for your patience.--Scott Mac 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, deleted text e-mailed to you.--Scott Mac 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the text. You and your colleagues were correct, that, as of 2010 our standards had evolved to the point where an article like this shouldn′t remain if it wasn′t being referenced.
For what it is worth the original article seems quite neutrally written and accurate. So, I would say it was OK -- except for being unreferenced. The other individuals it lists, as members of Lanctot′s cell, I would have to check to see if they were, in fact, members of his cell. His cell did get flown to Cuba. Most or all of the cell did return to Quebec after years of exile, and they did receive quite light sentences. The information that he stood accused of plotting against the Israeli diplomat is new to me, but it sounds credible.
One last question -- did User:Sherurcij write this? It is his style, and he knew much more about Canadian terrorism than anyone else. But he was usually pretty good about including good references -- so that is not like him. Sherurcij left the project two or three years ago -- a real loss. Geo Swan (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It was substantially created by an IP in 2002.--Scott Mac 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
2002. Thanks. Sherurcij started contributing in October 2004 -- the same month as me. A coincidence that triggered many accusations, and two SPI. Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your block[edit]

Probably the right decision, as there seem to be some real grounds for concern, though I'm a bit uneasy that it seems to have been driven by pseudonymous posts on a malicious off-wiki website. Do you think you could let Arbcom know so that they have the opportunity to review the block if necessary? It seems this individual may have previously been drawn to their attention but for whatever reason they may not have taken action (maybe they felt the evidence didn't stand up). Prioryman (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Best no more on wiki discussion.--Scott Mac 16:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you also revdel all the UT:JIMBO with the discussions linked, and preferably get them oversighted? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that's needed, but I've already notified the oversight list; let's not spam them unnecessarily. Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Usually best if one admin does one act, and leaves the follow-up to others. This isn't my crusade.--Scott Mac 17:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Scott, Prioryman has violated his interaction ban with Delicious Carbuncle several times in this incident and did so yet again here on your page by referring to "pseudonymous posts on a malicious off-wiki website", an obvious allusion to DC who has said on-wiki that he authored the posts in question. I have raised these violations to Seraphim, but he is declining to take action. Since Prioryman is again violating his restriction on your page I encourage you to take the appropriate action regarding these violations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of or interest in this matter. There is a page for these things I believe.--Scott Mac 17:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It was a community restriction so it would be enforced through AN or by any uninvolved admin alerted to the violation, you can see the details at WP:RESTRICT under restrictions placed by the community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've taken one bold admin action already over this. I don't intend to take any further action.--Scott Mac 17:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
So are you going to finish your one "bold action" by explaining to the user what violation of WP rules that he is alleged to have committed or just drop a load of bricks on his head and run away? I've never seen a more chicken block message than the one you left. Finish it up if you are so sure that you are the lone administrative sheriff willing to clean up Dodge... This is a matter for ArbCom, not for a snap decision for a drive by on Jimbo's talk page... Carrite (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
And I've rarely seen a better and more appropriate message. Perhaps one of us does not understand the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


I have nothing to add to this on wiki. Complaints go to arbcom. That's not meant to be evasive, it is just that it is not wise to say any more.--Scott Mac 09:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greengairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airdrie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Howdy[edit]

And merry Christmas. Scott, can you tell me, privately or publicly, what happened here? I'm interested. Feel free to burn after reading. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've no comment to make on that. My actions were self-referred to arbcom - queries go there.--Scott Mac 22:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Stop hand nuvola green.svg Next time you vandalize a talk page and call your fellow contributors "silly buggers" you will be blocked indefinitely and imprisoned in the Tower of London and key thrown away for eternity. Civility is of uttermost importance on wikipedia, more important than content did you know?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Grow up.--Scott Mac 14:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Get a sense of humour, seriously. I was just curious as to why you felt it necessary to remove a section on Malleus's talk page. Was it Parrot of Doom's comment? I'm not sure whether you are protecting Malleus or against him.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I was protecting Wikipedia against the time-sink of another civility shit-storm. Seriously, in the silly political climate we have over civility comments about people, elbows and shit are simply not helpful. I'd no idea they were "humourous". Maybe they were, but experienced users should know the way these things blow up and shouldn't be running the risk. And, why is it any action is for or against Malleus? Let's not play that game.--Scott Mac 14:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but if we can't laugh on occasion at ourselves and policies I think we're in danger of taking ourselves too seriously. I would agree that a lot of time wasting goes on on wikipedia and that taunting isn't constructive. I thought Malleus had retired, so was rather surprised to see that brought up. If he has returned to make comments which will be taken as "uncivil" he's certainly putting himself at risk.. Seasons greetings. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Loch Arkaig treasure[edit]

Please expand the lead for this. A GA should have a satisfactory lead. Also some of the sources are suspect and need either filling out with proper publishing info or replacing; The Clan Donald histories source is a dead link.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the lead is ok. But I don't own the article - so if someone wants to expand it, fine. I wrote that some time ago, I honestly can't remember where the sources were.--Scott Mac 19:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Lead should summarise the whole article really. Its rather short. Interesting topic.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The lead does summarise the whole article. It is a short article - it is long enough for me. However, if you want to change it, I say again I have no ownership issues.--Scott Mac 21:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

AN[edit]

Scott, I wanted to let you know that your most recent revision removed a comment I added. Was that intentional? Go Phightins! 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not intentional, sorry.--Scott Mac 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No big deal. It's been covered by now. Go Phightins! 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

...for sticking up for procedure and thoughtfulness - regardless of the specific details of what happened. Apparently knee-jerk reactions are the order of the day now. Sad. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, about that, Scott. I expect I ought to just mention that I mentioned you here. You and King Charles' head. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Overstatement[edit]

I responded to your comment on my talk and I thank you for that. I also struck the overstatement I made too. You're right to point out that my tone was over the top, and while I did make arguments on the merits, my negative tone overwhelmed them. We don't have to agree on this to have a valid discussion, so thank you for pointing that out. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Allerton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 and Neutral Point of View[edit]

I have been working on an article that you nominated for deletion a few months ago. You stated at the time that the article could not be neutral. I would ask that you take another look at Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 and offer some thoughts. Thanks for your time. Casprings (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you've done honest and sterling work. However, my view, as I've already stated, is that any selection of material around that title is inherently biased. There is no conceivable workaround to that - the article should not exist. (The material may be quite different, but it should be organised into different articles.) I've nothing more to add.--Scott Mac 09:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on removal[edit]

The "alphabet Soup" is wikipedia policy it's too long to put the full link into the edit summary so the alphabet soup goes there and you can check it out by putting it onto the end of a wikipedia url. Specifically the two I quote are WP:SOURCES and WP:ELNO This has been discussed at length in various places - currently on my talkpage, and at the reliable source noticeboard but also previously at the helpdesk and at the Spam wiki project. Undiscovered Scotland exist solely to make money by selling space to visitor attractions and by getting people to visit their page to earn money [1] hence hundreds of links to it from Wikipedia are probably making it a fortune this is specifically banned by policy as an external link (the ELNO one above.) Secondly Undiscovered Scotland does not mention where it gets it's information from Barry Mill for instance appears to be taken directly from the published National Trust guidebook to Barry Mill but Undiscovered Scotland do not credit national trust or claim to have written it themselves. this makes it unsuitable to use as a source in the first place, even worse it actually contains several factual errors (on other articles) so shouldn't be used at all - hence I'm removing it in both of thchangestances (which greenbank and hill of tarvit fall into). Ideally Barry Mill needs to be sourced to that original guidebook, but I don't have a copy and I don't live near enough the mill to pick up a copy to confirm the information is the same but I'm fairly confident it will be; in short it's one of the few cases where I believe the information is better remaining unsourced (as unlikely to be challenged) rather than wrongly crediting it to a source that has copied it from - the guidebook - although an alternative is to remove all content from the article source solely to the undiscovered source until it can be verified by a scholarly source. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC) The guidebook can be purchased online so I will buy in the next couple of days and re-source the article after. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the fact that a site is commercial or is making money is entirely immaterial. The question is solely reliability. Lots of publication don't cite their sources - that certainly makes them weaker but does not rule them out. So, whilst there's no reason to think this a first rate source - you've given no reason to ban it altogether. Now, if the sources can be improved, great. If a more reliable source can be added - better. If that means a weaker source can be superseded, excellent. However, the fact is that most of the references to Undiscovered Soctland that you removed and I reverted were the actual source I used when I wrote the material! It is important we inform the reader what sources have actually been used. This is especially true if some may think it "unreliable" - so the reader can assess for themselves. (Caveat lector) Again, if we can verify the material from a better source let's do that. But removing the information on where material came from is not helpful. (If the source is so unreliable that you need to do this, then it is best to remove the material sourced from there itself.--Scott Mac 00:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact that a site is commercial and that it was inserted into the encyclopaedia as linkspam many years before you joined the encyclopaedia (and was reported then but no one wanted to clear it up) an the fact it was monitored again last year by the Spam wiki project because again it's insertion had been reported as linkspam make it's use as an external link highly dubious. Even given your defence of Barry Mill above this doesn't explain why you reinserted it as an external site in two pages where it isn't used as a source. But even as a reference it is used to reference trivial things throughout the encyclopaedia that don't need to be referenced (often little more than a word or two of observable fact) in order to drive traffic back to its site. On the other "removals" you claim I left unsourced - Barra the material for the whole section is covered by a cite to the Scotsman at the end of the next paragraph. It is possible to create a reference to the paper at the end of both paragraphs - but the article isn't one where all paragraphs have sources so I left it as is - I've reverted you again - if you want me to reference the second paragraph source just let me know. The Joan Eardley one was a mistake as I could see it was a stronger source that covered the same material but I neglected to notice the link to it was dead - it's since been corrected. On other pages such as Dumfries and Dumbarton I have been forced to delete swathes of text but I was trying to avoid this with Barry Mill as the material is relatively uncontroversial but since we should correct the reliance on this source I will get the book it's probably copied from to avoid doing that (and if it is copied from that book then the site will fail the never use link policy and will probably need to be blacklisted). As for your suggestion I discuss this on each of the 578 pages that linkspamed to this site - that's impractical, bureaucratic and the reason why the first attempt to remove this linkspam failed - it's also why I've kept the discussion was generally centralised on the reliable sources noticeboard with invites to discuss from wikiproject Scotland. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll look later but I'm probably going to revert you. When you remove something and are reverted, you should come to the talk page of the article and discuss it - not continue to remove it. You are wrongly using terms like "linkspam" - spam is where someone puts a link into an article for the purpose of bolstering the site and not improving the article. In the articles you are speaking of I put the link in, and there's no "spamming" involved. It may be a low quality link, we can discuss that - but it is not spam. If there's material in the article which you wish to challenge on grounds of accuracy, that's fine - but we discuss that on the talk pages and consider our sources. I've not found any major inaccuracies in undiscovered Scotland, so I'm not as convinced as you are that it isn't reliable - but reliably is relative - so we need to look at each case as we go. Not about doctrainairly removing a source because we don't like commercial sites. Did you discuss this on the Scottish Wikiproject? All I see there is one ecperienced Scotish Wikipedian objecting to your removals. I see no-one supporting you on the RSNB either. Please stop it, or I will simply blanket revert you.--Scott Mac 09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Really, you blindly revert me without checking the next source in the article and now you threaten to blindy revert me if I continue to attempt to improve the reliability and verification of the encyclopaedia? Is that action codified in policy somewhere I've missed? Secondly you fail to read what is said, whether or not you added these links - Undiscovered Scotland became linkspan when it was massively entered into the project years before you joined - that problem needed to be dealt with and still does, newer edits may be in good faith but contribute to the pre-existing problem and should be avoided. Finally Dr Blofeld did not object to my edits - his comment is in response to the questioning of it as a reliable source and my confirmation that it displays none of the fact checking or editorial standards we require to consider a source reliable. My edits came after that when I questioned why it was so widespread. As for consensus no-one has defended its insertion even you keep defending it as weak source without showing criteria that raise it beyond a self published source which should certainly be used with extreme care not broadly as it currently is. Its been challenged several times over the years so even without a current consensus there is support for removal. Since then a further two editors have come to support the changes and yet only yourself who has a vested intrest having contributed to the problems objects. Perhaps you need to take a step back, take a breath and re-evaluate this source critically withouth reference to your use of it? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Now you are talking bollocks. I joined in 2004, if that's got anything to do with it. That someone was previously spamming a particular link is immaterial to people constructively inserting it at other times. It is the usefulness of a particular link/source in a particular context that matters - not what someone else may have inappropriately done with it elsewhere. You led me to believe that your mass actions were based on a considered discussion somewhere, it turns out they are not. I'm busy today, but I'll file and RFC later on the Scottish Wikipedian's board and we can look at this indepth. Meanwhile, hold our horses.--Scott Mac 11:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The year you joined is unimportant, it was to stress the fact that it happened a long time ago and I did so relative to the start of your visible editing history in 2008, by 2006 it was reported that it had been used in over 200 articles and there is more than context at play - if a site has been manipulating wikipedia for commercial gain then it should be given no harbour particularly where other other sources support the same material in a reliable and traceable manner and this does not. I never used the words "considered discussion" if you chose to take that from my words then it's not my failing but generally the problem every time this source has been raised is that there is a certain apathy about discussing it or taking action against it, the same apathy that allows errors and unverifiable claims to slip in. I'm quite happy to discuss these problems further if you can raise interest in further discussion but as I say that discussion may be moot if the NTS work reveals the site to be violating the copyright or plagiarising the research of others. I'm not sure why you feel a separate RFC at the wikiproject Scotland would be better than drawing more Scottish editors to the current reliable source discussion, but do what you will. I will hold off for a few days, but see no procedural need to stop replacing this source where a better one exists or removing it where the material is already covered by sources on the page avoiding the controversial edits you have highlighted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for what you are doing. Mass removals without consensus are bad. Your arguments are based on a number of irrelevancies (that people were spamming a number of years ago). So, please, until you get a consensus, stop.--Scott Mac 13:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I've already agreed to stop, continually repeating the order over and over again seems intended to to make me obstinate. My basic argument is not based on irrelevancies - it remains that it fails relevant policy in the majority of instances in which it has been added, it fails relevant policy in the use of a source like it - for all but a few instances (it is the self published source of an individual who is not considered an expert in any of the fields it is used to source). It is your attempt to justify your own use of it that leads to arguing an attempts to create inconsistencies. I still await your RFC. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The NTS book arrived today, I can confirm the Undiscovered Scotland source is a very close paraphrase and in areas may even constitute a copyright violation (though I guess that's between each of their Lawyers not us.) I'll point out one error that Undiscovered have made and we've copied - in the book it talks about the property being insured against fire in 1811 and three years later this clause being used when the building caught fire. Due to the wording, Undiscovered have missed the fact that the fire occurred in 1814 and have reported it as 1811 - we've done likewise sourcing it to Undiscovered. There are other similar mistakes (The section on Clark and Cant is glaring but the errant claims haven't been repeated in our article). I can update the sourcing and try and fix any mistakes if you're happy for me to proceed, otherwise I continue to wait for an RFC. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you've got a better source (and the NTS obviously is - I've used the booklets myself when I've had them) then fixing mistakes and replacing the sourcing with the superior source is brilliant! Not only do I not object, I enthusiastically thank you for your efforts. I've no problem seeing UndicScotl as not being the best source and it being replaced wherever possible with better ones. My issue was removing it where it was the only source used for particular info, and no better one was currently available to us. If any material we have is only verified from Undiscovered, then we need to tell the reader than by giving the source.--Scott Mac 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

First Glasgow Wiki Meetup[edit]

You are invited to the first ever Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment[edit]

Semi-protection on Jacque Fresco article[edit]

Greetings, would you be willing to lift the semi-protection on the Jacque Fresco article? I'd like to see what happens. Right now, the article is dominated by myself and User:Earl King Jr., and it may be beneficial to have outside contributions. Can it be lifted, or is that bad idea?--Biophily (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't help but smile...[edit]

Good point, although I think the humour may get lost given the tone of the discussion on that page. Anyone claiming to be a duck is more likely to be attempting "suicide by cop" that an actually be a duck (for obvious reasons)... WJBscribe (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Talking ducks are simply extremely rare.--Scott Mac 15:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

FYI[edit]

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#Why are some articles removed?[edit]

A question was raised here about an old speedy deletion of yours. Your comments are welcome. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the speedy was valid - but that recreation is also valid. Any pagewatching admin, please look in and review the deletion.--Scott Mac 15:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sachsgate edit[edit]

Hi Scott, regarding the changes on the The Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row article, I believe the alterations I made were adding to the known facts about the episode. For instance, the article currently says 'After little attention, an article in the Mail on Sunday...' which isn't really correct. 'After no attention whatsoever, a news story (not an article) in the Mail on Sunday' would be much more accurate. Were there specific parts of the revision which you thought were misleading? Many thanks, Tim, Tcheckley (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You removed information. If you check the history, you'll see that the current form was worked out by several people after discussion a few years back. If you've got suggestions, I suggest you put them on the talk page and get feedback first.--Scott Mac 12:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested.....[edit]

In arguing about climate change section given your interest in BLPs and politics etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you because you once won the "straight shooter" award. I know of a case where someone was blocked as a sockpuppet, because of an allegation by an editor who is a big-time "system gamer." The so-called evidence he put forward was simply long-winded BS. The blocked editor has posted a notice on his talk page asking for his block to be reviewed, but a week has gone by with no response. Would you mind taking a look? User_talk:Joe_Bodacious#July_2014_2. Thanks many times, Waalkes (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I also took a look at the the edit-time patterns, which, it was asserted, seem to show a pattern of editing at certain times and that, therefore, Joe is a sock. Take a look at them, they don't show much similarity at all, other than showing edit times typical for American timezones. Honestly, it concerns me when purported quantitative evidence is presented without any real scrutiny. In cases like this, it is helpful to skeptically look for differences in "patterns" rather than simply look for similarities. I think there is a sock out there, but it is not evidently related to Joe. Just my assessment. 75.70.203.201 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion of MilkyTracker[edit]

Hello, I noticed you were the administrator who closed the discussion on the most recent deletion of MilkyTracker. (Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MilkyTracker_(2nd_nomination) ) I am intereseted in restoring the article, as I have described here:

"This is a software that has been around for quite a while and its notable enough to have useful citations associated with it. It currently referenced as a red link on FastTracker 2 and could potentially be linked on several related articles. There are articles that exist about software less or equally notable to this. The page has been deleted and recreated multiple times, which shows that multiple people have found this article useful." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#MilkyTracker

From what I gather in the discussion and sources elsewhere, there is definitely enough reference material to justify notability. Wikipedia includes extensive information on arguably just as notable topics, as is visibile on the page for Demoscene. Secondplanet (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact it's mentioned on several related articles, or that similar articles exist, is really beside the point. The question is do independent sources exist, that are not related to the company producing it, and are they quality sources (industry recognised reviews, for example) giving verifiable information (ie not just "it exists") from which a proper article can be written. The consensus four years ago was such sources did not exist. If you think they do now exist, then there's a case for article. I suggest you might write an article in your userspace, using only information from solid sources, and then get someone familiar with Wikipedia's software articles to review it. There's probably a Wikipedia/Wikiproject:Software where you might find a reviewer. If you can do that, I've no objection to a recreation, but someone may want to take it for another deletion discussion.
Having said all that, I know nothing about software and I'm not very active anymore, so if another admin is reading this and wants to do something different, I waive any right to object.--Scott Mac 19:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Sources elsewhere definitely exist, so it would be possible to rewrite the article. However, it is also mentioned in the discussion that there were a few already on the page, so I would be interested in seeing the version as it existed before deletion as a starting point for a rewrite. Is there a way to do this? Secondplanet (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, I managed to find a mirror. Secondplanet (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Secondplanet I've restored it to preserve history as no mention of copyvio and you can compare directly and there be proper attribution. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cas, looks fine to me. After all this time, and the fresh rewrite, if anyone did disagree then a new AfD would be in order.--Scott Mac 21:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Olivia Pope fair use - page watchers please look[edit]

I've nominated an image on Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Olivia Pope - season 3 poster.jpg I believe fails our strict fair use criteria. There's a bit of an interesting dispute there about the nature of how we apply the FUC. Looking at the page, there's only a couple of users active. I don't want to canvas for support, but I would like to canvas for some thoughtful folk to conside the case and issues. Thanks.--Scott Mac 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)