User talk:Scottperry

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

Welcome to my talk-page. Please leave any comments you may wish to discuss with me here, and I will be happy to respond.

Proposed deletion of List of works based on A Course in Miracles[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of works based on A Course in Miracles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:N no indication the subject has been covered by any source

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see reply here. Scott P. (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


FYI, you asked that I reopen merge discussion at Talk:Academi, but I just wanted to let you know that I didn't close it. I may have made what was at the time the last comment, but I don't know what happened after that or who did it. Good luck. ENeville (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

edit war warning[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at A Course in Miracles‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your closure of a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales[edit]

Very very bitey to close on basis that the proposer is new. Also please don't make assumptions about what we might decide given the chance. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There were four "oppose" votes and no "support" votes. Others besides myself had requested for closure. When I looked closely at Walter's edits, I could see that the supposed "newbie" Walter had mastered Wiki-write coding better than many who have edited Wikipedia for years. It seems to me that pranksters like Walter need as much encouragement to abandon their pranks and instead do serious editing as we can give them. Scott P. (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You didn't give the rest of us a chance to support. To extrapolate from 4 !votes to making sweeping assertions about what "we" would decide is a little over-confident. To assume someone is a prankster just because they are more competent than you is a bit rich. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You can still comment in the discussion area on Jimbo's talk page about newbies not making such silly suggestions. 'Walter' was spoofing us all with the ludicrous proposal. Jimbo does not hold his job 'at our pleasure', but we edit 'at his pleasure'. Some editors seem to have no other intention than to stir up trouble, 'poke at the bee's nest', then stand back and giggle while watching the ensuing mayhem. So you would want to give an editor who has only been editing for three hours the authority to have Jimbo 'fired', and you might like to have the right to 'fire' Jimbo yourself (I am presuming)? By engaging in a fanciful dialogue where we 'pretend' to have the right to fire Jimbo, does not automatically transform this apparent fantasy of yours into a reality. The discussion itself was a pointless exercise in fantasy and a waste of time and space on Jimbo's talk page. If that were the world we lived in, where we offered newbies such authority, then we would all lose the privilege of editing Wikipedia in very short order, once Wikipedia was gutted by those who would apparently want to gut it, 'just for the fun of it', such as Walter. Scott P. (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow! You really can't cope with people who disagree with you can you? As for your ludicrous comment "you would want to give an editor who has only been editing for three hours the authority to have Jimbo 'fired', and you might like to have the right to 'fire' Jimbo yourself" - no, that's just bollocks and not at all what I or the OP were saying - I presume it's simply that you cannot understand rather than that you are deliberately misrepresenting me. My position is that the community should be able to decide whether or not Wales should continue to act as he does. We do not edit here at "his pleasure" - he does not own Wikipedia, he is not the "editor-in-chief" or anything like it, and it is damaging to Wikipedia when editors assume that he is. I'll try to remember in future that you are the sole arbiter of what discussions are allowed on Wales's talk page - and then ignore you and your bizarre behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to finally know your position. You would like to in some way have some 'authority' over Jimbo if you could. I can understand your wish to have this, but in reality, legally, in the course of normal events, we really have no authority over him, but rather legally, he does have some authority over us. He very rarely exercises such authority, and thus few ever experience it or even know about it. Thus the 'feel' of a 'rough democracy' pervades Wikipedia, and rightfully so. The current legal and social organization of Wikipedia is what has made Wikipedia what it is today. Personally I know of very few veteran/ well-experienced editors who would have it any other way. Scott P. (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim
'nuff said. Face-smile.svg Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot Wikipedia is a comic strip. Thanks for reminding me Michael. And Scott, no I don't personally want authority over anyone (anyone who does want personal authority over another, or others, is invariably unfit to hold such authority, and should be kept as far away from any kind of public power as possible), I do want Wikipedia to be a community, governing itself, and not relying childishly on a (possibly) benevolent god figure. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In a perfect world, we would all be perfectly equal, there would be no need for police, and the need for a legal system would be irrelevent. Here on earth, an organizstion like Wikipedia has to have someone at its helm. Othewise the ship would hit the rocks. As far as I can tell, so far Wikipedia has been skippered pretty well. As far as I can tell, Jimbo has set up a system that is essentially 90% self governing. But when someone has to select the correct hardware, draw the line on exactly which IP's to block, or deal with copyright attorneys, someone has to take ultimate responsibility, and so far as I can tell, Jimbo has proven himself a master at this sort of stuff. No he is not superman or God. But yes, he has a huge responsibility on his shoulders, and in my humble opinion, he bears it well. Scott P. (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And "comic strip"? No... though I do find ridiculous ideas can only be treated with humor, and those song lines were fitting. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]

Hi Scott, I'm trying to understand the purpose of your edit [1]. I undid it in the mean time. The hatnotes are for disambiguation (and navigation) not (just) a listing of redirects that point there. As the redirect you added didn't have a link, I presumed that was not understood? Regards Widefox; talk 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct assumption, Thanks for the correction. Scott P. (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bare footnotes[edit]

Please do not leave bare URL footnotes with your edits (within the ISIL article). They are liable to link-rot (if the website moves to a new domain), which will lead to dead links. Please use the cite templates on the Edit page to compose footnotes; this is the standard form for footnotes in this article. I would give you an instructions template, but as I see you have edited in Wikipedia for many years you will already know how to use the cite templates. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Just in case:

Composing footnotes using the WP cite templates
(Summary of WP:FOOTNOTES section 3.1.)
Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain with a new URL, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation.
  1. First put the cursor at the point in the edit text where you want the footnote to go, then click "Cite" in the edit strip at the top of the Edit Page, then click "Templates" on the left, and a drop-down menu appears.
  2. Choose "cite web" or "cite news" (for articles and websites), "cite book" or "cite journal", click and a box comes up.
  3. Fill in the all details of the citation, then click "Preview" and "Show parsed preview" to see it looks right. (To correct anything, correct the box entries, then click the two "Previews" again.) In "cite book" remember to add the page number(s) of the book.
  4. Click "Insert" and the citation automatically goes into the edit text. (It may not go in at the exact point where the cursor is if you use Firefox or Chrome.)

--P123ct1 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

See reply in next section. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS - Caliphate[edit]

I added "which?" to "early Caliphate" only because I didn't know what is meant by the "early Caliphate". I have no background in this and I thought a reader might be puzzled and wonder which one. Is it a reference to the "earliest" Caliphate or "an early Caliphate"? As I imagine readers will be curious, could you be more specific in the text? That was all! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi P-123.., I've tried to clarify all of the points you requested in the above two sections. Will review alternate views of Refs with the suggested browsers. Thanks for the suggestions. Scott P. (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Those footnote instructions are very simple, and much clearer than the WP instructions! Please do use them. I find the best template to use is "cite news" (unless it is a book or journal). Don't forget to put in the date of the article and the "publisher" (use "work" if it is a newspaper) and the author/s. If there's more than one, the plus sign will give a new line for each. I know this may seem like a fuss, but believe me, bare URL footnotes (i.e. just http addresses) have been the bane of this article, which is why I drew up those instructions for editors! --P123ct1 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Please explain this revert. I wasn't "auto-editing"--I was trying to give credit to the persons who took the photographs of the virus in the first place. If you respond here, please use {{Ping}} —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: Reply follows:
Hi Koavf, Sorry about the incorrect assumption about an "auto-edit". Still, the reason I reverted was because I couldn't understand which photos were being referenced, and also I couldn't understand the new flow of the edited sentence. Were you referring to the photo in the "Genome section" by chance? If you could either make a new sentence describing exactly which photo is being referenced, and place the attribution quote in parenthesis, or else place the attribution directly under the referenced photo, I know my poor rather slow mind would be better able to understand. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Photos The photos are not present in the article: they are the original pictures taken of the Ebola virus itself. I guess that wasn't clear. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Koavf: Reply follows:
There, I just added the credit as I would normally expect it to appear, but I think it would still need a reference in order for it to stay. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Better discuss at WP:NPOV!

Also, note that editing a high-profile policy page like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view without seeking consensus is regarded more disruptive than other revert-warring.
Whatever you think of the July 2014 consensus, the version you reverted to has no consensus.
Your accusation that in July 2014 I didn't follow due process is unacceptable to me.
So please, there's only one way to win your argument, that is with a discussion on the content, as I said multiple times. Consensus can change (as I also already said multiple times) and I'm open to such discussions.
I'm not open to a discussion that is about damaging my reputation as a contributor to policies and guidelines. That is loss of time and will get us nowhere.
I'll post at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to see whether more input is possible on the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:BALASPS. Thank you.

Your "humble suggestion"[edit]

Regarding your humble suggestion on Jimbo Wales talk page, I suggest you look at the date stamps of the comments I made. They were all made prior to Jimbo telling me not to post there. Since I cannot correct your slander on Jimbo's page myself, please strike your humble suggestion with an appropriate apology. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I noted that Jim asked you to stop posting there at 1400, but your last two posts there were at around 1700. Scott P. (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the day before. Strike your comment and apologize. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh never mind... I've stricken it for you. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Epipelagic: OK, apparently you did not intend to post on Jimmy's page against his request, but all of your postings were dated from the 23rd. Still, as he has asked, please don't post anymore on his talk page. If you agree here, I will not "unstrike" my entry. OK? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
How dare you try and blackmail me after making false allegations. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, Scott, I have no idea why you won't do the decent thing and just admit you made a mistake. --NeilN talk to me 05:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I don't understand the dating of the comments at all, they seem to me to be dated later, nobody has yet explained to me why a comment timestamped 1700 23 October by Epi was supposedly posted before a comment timestamped 1400 23 October by Jimbo. Epi, could you please at least explain this to me? You won't promise not to post there, and you seem to have accidentally posted the last two comments, so I will delete my comment at any rate. But could you please at least try to explain the timestamps to me? Yes, I am confused. Scott P. (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)" is what I see. --NeilN talk to me 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: My mistake, sorry. I think it may have something to do with the way I have my timestamp reading preferences set, and the fact that UTC was in a different day than here, I don't know. Doubly sorry. Scott P. (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's okay :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

List of National Time Laboratories[edit]

Hi, I found your page about national time laboratories and I'd like to link to that page from the page about Network Time Foundation. I'd also like to see the list of countries that have national time labs be updated and filled out, possibly with an eye towards TAI/UTC calculations and the IERS-A bulletins. Thoughts? Stenn (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stenn: Hi Stenn,
Sorry I didn't ever "complete" that article on Time Laboratories. I got about half way through, and it started to become progressively more difficult to find all of the data that would have been required to complete it. Thinking that the article was probably something that does indeed belong in Wikipedia, I decided not to delete the article, not to finish it, and simply to hope that someone else with more connections and more free-time than I, perhaps a physicist? might be able to complete it.
Thanks for your interest in the article,
Scott P. (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)