User talk:Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Scott Martin)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome Articles and project maintenance Administration (vandalism, disputes...) General chat, everything else Old archives



This user has opted out of talkbacks

Regarding pending changes[edit]

Just remembered we'd discussed pending changes on Talk:Sarah Stierch but had put hold further discussion until I was back from my break. Seems better to not clutter up that talk page with a discussion of pending changes and protection policy, so I'll post it here.


Pending changes may be used to protect articles against:
  1. persistent vandalism
  2. violations of the biographies of living persons policy
  3. copyright violations
Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred. Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors (unregistered users) at a disadvantage. Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered.
In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption.

I interpret that as pretty wide latitude to apply PC1 protection to articles if they've been subject to violations of BLP. Not necessarily persistent violations of BLP, but some violation of BLP. I've applied it pretty liberally to BLP violations when they pop up in the course of editing or at WP:RFPP. The relevant RfC for this is here. For low traffic BLPs it seems like a very good thing to apply PC1 to them—to prevent potential BLP violations getting through. It shouldn't be on George W. Bush or Lady Gaga because of the edit rate, but on articles about quite minor people, they often aren't watchlisted by a lot of people. Occasionally, when something like Question Time is on, you'll get people engaging in vandalism of articles about politicians. If they are some minor backbencher, it may be that nobody is going to catch said vandalism if it manages to evade the Huggle brigade and ClueBot NG.

The current policy is that it can't be done pre-emptively, but there doesn't seem to be anything in policy saying that once some BLP violation (or indeed persistent vandalism) has occurred, an administrator can't put the article on long-term or indefinite pending changes level 1. Unlike semi-protection, obviously, indefinite pending changes still lets unregistered users edit but their changes have to be approved by someone either seeing them on their watchlist or through Special:PendingChanges.

I'm not sure how other admins apply PC1: I've seen a fair few admins protect stuff under short-term semi-protection when I would probably have gone with PC, which may be simply because I was a strong supporter of enabling PC while other admins were less keen on it. Or maybe they didn't get the memo that PC was usable again. There's never really been anything in protection policy dictating the length of protection terms. Instead, it seems to be left up to the discretion of administrators to determine how long protection is applied. I know that for school articles, they are usually put on recurring one year semi-protection—just like school IPs tend to be put on one year blocks, so if the IP gets changed and reassigned it isn't permablocked. Pending Changes may be a viable alternative to these kinds of recurring long-term semi-protection. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'm sure if you want an extensive debate about it, you may be able to try Wikipedia talk:Protection policy (although that mostly seems to be people putting in {{edit semi-protected}} requests in the wrong place). —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I made a mistake. The section I quoted from WP:PROTECTION includes this bit: "Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption." Well, I may have been a bit excessive on PC1 protection then. I'll go a bit easier with it in the future. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Tom Morris, almost no IP edits have been accepted under PC. There have been some BLP violations amongst those rejected, which of course remain in the page history. Your points pretty much point to the need to put on semi-protection, which prevents the unregistered-editor BLP violations from even making it into the page history. Please reconsider. PC is actually quite suboptimal for BLP enforcement. Risker (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tom Morris: Hello! Thanks for this; sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I haven't had a chance to sit down and digest it properly, but will get back to you when I have. Cheers. — Scott talk 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought[edit]

Hi, just a heads-up that User:Scott is currently free and you might want to claim it as a Doppelganger account name before Flow takes off. - Pointillist (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI I've struck out my "qualified support" exception to link policy in signatures. - Pointillist (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Pointillist: I'll see your doppelganger.. and raise you a full account. Thanks very much for the suggestion! — Scott talk 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yay! I was crossing my fingers in the background. Bonus points for "mononymously", btw. - Pointillist (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


[1] has nothing to do with whether a signature guideline should be promoted to policy and therefore doesn't belong on that page -- I recommend you move it and the replies to the user's talk page. NE Ent 22:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Help identifying a London street, 1902[edit]

Mystery street

Many thanks for your efforts. I agree that Victoria Street is a strong possibility, before the Germans "knocked it about a bit". I'll leave my non-committal caption as it is, unless I can find another contemporary view. Thanks again. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was fun trying. Incidentally, I almost wrote "due to a bit of palaver in the early 1940s". Funny how we have these ways of talking about it. — Scott talk 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually there doesn't seem to be any bomb damage in this 1950 aerial shot of Victoria Street (some features require free registration). Unfortunately the roof-line doesn't appear to match File:Edward VIIs coronation procession London 9 August 1902.jpg so it might be the October procession after all. - Pointillist (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This is tantalizing; I really want to know now! So, I've asked some heavyweights and will report back should I get an answer. — Scott talk 22:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
in the notes at the source, " on the right is a J Lyons tea room". Might help narrow it down if the directories of the day list them. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Is that St Paul's cupola in the distance on the left? If so, might be Cheapside looking west, or (less likely) Fleet Street looking east? - Pointillist (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: New template for old talk pages on redirects[edit]

Hi Scott, thanks for the note. Sounds nifty! Graham87 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Tumbledown Dick[edit]

The Tumbledown Dick

I note you have comprehensively re-worked this page to remove bias and bring it into line with the Wikipedia style. Well done, it is much better and more representative now. But beware that when the campaign group find out, they will almost certainly want to revert many of your edits. Phooto (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I've put it on my watchlist; if the campaign group return, I will work to keep it compliant while educating them about how our articles should be. — Scott talk 17:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the procedural close on the Irish village (that was a case of me knocking the editor's heads together and I think went off to WP:IRELAND, they are both good editors but it is obviously a spat and should not have come to RfD in the first place)

If you're around, can you look at moving Scope (disambiguation) over Scope. Four editors including me have expressed the desire to do that, it can always be reversed but since all of us agree there is no obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that would seem the sensible thing to do. It's at the WP:RFD#Scope but seems to have got consensus very quickly, if four people counts as consensus. Then if the DAB needs polishing I will do that but I don't like to touch articles under discussion while they are being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done! — Scott talk 14:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. There was no great hurry in one way, but the sooner it is moved the sooner it is improved, and since the editors at the discussion are all regulars I genuinely believe it is uncontroversial and makes the encyclopaedia better, which is what we are here for. If not, it can always be moved away again. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for the tip on my talk page. Cheers! KeithbobTalk 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Scott. I wonder if you'd mind casting your eye over this user's unblock request. I've declined it due to the username being taken, but assuming that they pick something else suitable I don't see a good reason to keep them blocked - they seem to be willing to steer clear of Cybersmile as a topic, and their previous edits, whilst single-minded, don't seem especially egregious. What do you think? Yunshui  12:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui - that seems pretty reasonable. I'm happy for you to unblock them on that basis. Incidentally, you might want to advise them that if they really want to be "Toast312", they can request to usurp it. It was registered by in 2010 by someone who made a nonsense article that got speedied, then never came back. Thanks for checking in for my opinion! — Scott talk 12:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Scott, on it. Yunshui  12:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

mw:Requests for comment/Anchor links for lines changed in diffs[edit]

If you are still interested, you can comment on that RfC. According to some users I asked, this would be the correct venue to discuss the design and implementation. (When I saw that list of bugs on your userpage with none fixed, from years ago, I felt I had to at least try to fix some.) πr2 (tc) 02:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Dont take my harshness on the talk personally. I'm a bit like that. No disrespect was intended; I know you are an ok guy; I was letting off some steam at the deletions, and if you would like to work on the articles, than that would be great. There are more sources out there than you would think. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

div id[edit]

Hi Scott - Can you point me to the < div id = XXX > < / div > tag info? I see it in one of the articles I'm editing and can't find an explanation anywhere. Before I create a div id article, I thought I'd ask you ;-) And of course now I can't find the code to tell Wikipedia to not treat my comment as a code, so I had to put in spacing instead to deactivate the code. Timtempleton (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The tags to disable wikicode are, appropriately enough, <nowiki>...</nowiki>. For the rest, though I guess Scott probably knows better than I do, can you say what article you're finding the div tag in? Div tags (which are standard HTML tags, not exclusive to wikicode) don't do all that much on their own; i5 all depends on how they're being used. Forgive me if I'm blathering on about stuff you already know, though Writ Keeper  03:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tim, Writ Keeper is right - <div>...</div> is a generic tag, I'd need to see where you're seeing it to understand the context. — Scott talk 11:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The code I was trying to clarify was <div id=xxx></div> where it was assigning an alias (xxx), as you can do with citations. I can't remember now where it was. But thanks for explaining the nowiki code - that helps also, and led me to!Timtempleton (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Clash with talk page guidelines[edit]

Hi, re this edit: see WT:TPG#Signature cleanup. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Refactored RfD nomination[edit]

I have made two changes to your RfD for C: aliases; one is boring; the other is a refactor because I changed CAT:MS to point to a project category instead of a content category a few months ago, which I think all voters should know, and I think it helps to draw more attention to the two content category redirects. I hope you do not mind, and I certainly wont mind if you revert or alter my edit. Getting in early, I bet that someone (there are a few candidates in mind) will say each redirect should have been nominated separately to allow the pros and cons of each to be fairly evaluated. Sigh. There are also a few content category shortcuts in CAT:*, which I intend to nominate for deletion once C: is sorted out. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John! And yes - I had that thought about the procedural objection as well. Hopefully the fact that these are all headed to the Phantom Zone real soon now will be enough to sidestep that. I find it hard to believe that I've spent pretty much a month and a half on shepherding this along - and all as an outgrowth of that interminable RfC about PNRs from the start of this year. It'll be good to be able to get on with tidying up the loose ends, such as those CAT ones. — Scott talk 12:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

breaking links[edit]

Please don't move pages like you did with Rejang Kayan language. It was a redirect; by moving it without leaving a redirect, you broke the incoming links. "Unnecessary disambiguation in title" is irrelevant and useless. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A) Not leaving a redirect was an accident. B) It is hard to even conceive of something more useless than the way in which you are carrying out your apparent hobby of importing the entirety of Ethnologue into Wikipedia, which is producing a result somewhere between a bird's nest and a plate of spaghetti. Your disambiguations and uses of {{distinguish}} are particularly poor, and the idiosyncratic mess that you've spent years painstakingly creating will almost never be fixed to a degree where it is convenient to read. Well done. — Scott talk 21:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of leaders in Vietnam infobox[edit]

Hey! Do you think you could provide me with an explanation as to why, in the Vietnam page, the Communist Party General Secretary is listed first and the President is listed second? According to Syntax in Template:Infobox country, the first leader listed is usually the head of state's (wikilinked) title, e.g. "President", "Monarch". I don't know if you're knowledgeable or even interested in this field, but I thought you'd be a great source or at least able to direct me to someone who knows. I haven't gotten any responses in Talk:Vietnam or Talk:Nguyen Phu Trong. (Oh, and good work with .shabaka! Some people are relentless with their comments about the spelling, though. :D) Thanks. --WikiWinters (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No technical reason - because someone put it there in October. I've put the president back at the top since President of Vietnam says the holder of that title is the head of state.
Regarding .shabaka - thanks! That guy just could not understand that we're not a dictionary, or how sourcing applies to topics, no matter how many time explanations were presented to him. Just another Randy, I suppose. — Scott talk 12:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

M11 link road protest[edit]

I noticed this edit. I was going to track down the original source it was obviously taken (plagiarised?) from, see if there was any other news coverage, work out what might need adding to the article, and do it. However, that would take an hour or two that I just don't have. I think I've just been a bit twitchy about the "Wikipedia sucks - all my edits get reverted" culture that's going around. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Just wanted to send let you know that when I copied the requests over to April 5, I reversed them due to their timestamps. But hey, I cannot say that I've never posted entires on the wrong date before; it is a bit silly when it happens. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey! No problem at all. I think what happened there, as well, is that I hit the "today's list" link moments before my clock ticked over to midnight. A cautionary tale for people thinking of editing on a late night.... Best, — Scott talk 13:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fly Young Red[edit]

hi Scott: i see that you are one of the administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. recently i wrote an article on a song by Fly Young Red called Throw That Boy Pussy, and within minutes, the article was tagged and now is speedily deleted despite what i thought was adequate sourcing. would you please restore the article at least to my userspace so i can work on it more, please? cheers. Perfect for you (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Perfect for you: Hi there. Done; you can find it at User:Perfect for you/Throw That Boy Pussy. — Scott talk 00:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thanks. :) Perfect for you (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for moving that draft into my userspace so I could improve it. Would you please have a look at the improved article (rewritten as an article on the artist instead of the song), and if the article belongs in the mainspace, would you please move it to "Fly Young Red", the artist's name. Many thanks for the time you've already given to this effort, and any further advice you might offer. :) Perfect for you (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No problem. I think you've done a good job so far, but I also think that coverage of Fly Young Red in the sort of media sources we usually expect is a bit thin on the ground. If I move it to mainspace you probably run the risk of it getting brought up at AfD as it stands, but then again from watching the video I get the feeling that Fly Young Red is going to get much more well-known in the near future, so it has a good chance of surviving long enough for that to happen. You can move the article to the new title yourself if you want, it doesn't require an admin. Good luck! — Scott talk 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the feedback, and for looking into this for me... some others were not as helpful. The article can stay where it is (for now), and in the meantime, there's a great song to listen to. :P Perfect for you (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth, as I'd like not to get a notification every time the other participants talk to each other. Thank you....

Good move. Sorry you have been inconvenienced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No call, no show[edit]

Giving you a heads up, I intend to restore the article No call, no show. I've addressed the issues in the AfD, added three reliable sources and two other sources. Definitely a notable occurrence in the workforce and deserves a separate article.

Revised version User:Valoem/No call, no show

Please let me know of any issues. Thanks! Valoem talk contrib 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good job! — Scott talk 18:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikiarchaeologist UBX[edit]

Hello Scott, I couldn't help but notice that you've created a fork of my wikiarchaeologist UBX with slightly tweaked wording. If you'd like, feel free to update my original UBX with your modified wording; I'm not a fan of template forking generally speaking, so I'd prefer that if it's all right with you. =) Cheers! ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dinoguy1000! Thank you, I've done that and am now using yours. Best wishes, — Scott talk 19:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A couple of Userfy requests[edit]

Hi can you userfy Sara Jay, Rachel Starr, and Elexis Monroe, talk pages as well please. I may be attempting a DRV soon after discussion with a few other editors. Valoem talk contrib 15:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. They're in your userspace. — Scott talk 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I've just nominated two of these for speedy deletion after they popped on my watchlist. Rachel Starr is an obvious copyvio, and Sara Jay is an unsourced BLP including a claim that the subject works as an "escort". I don't be;ieve such content is acceptable even in userspace. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`
D'oh. Sorry, I took that request at face value and neglected to check carefully. I won't let that happen again. — Scott talk 22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)