User talk:Scottywong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Snottywong)
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge.

In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords.

Feel free to showcase your work here!

If you have any questions, please leave a message here. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

Westshore Town Centre[edit]

Hi SW: requesting userfication of Westshore Town Centre to User:Northamerica1000/Westshore Town Centre, to enable a merge of some of the content to Langford, British Columbia. I recall having adding sources to the deleted article, so that content could be merged to improve the Langford, British Columbia article. Please respond at your convenience. NorthAmerica1000 05:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

These are the only sources in the deleted article that don't already appear in Langford, British Columbia:
At first glance, none of them appear to be particularly important to the Langford article. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 15:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Upon consideration, I withdraw the request for userfication. Thanks for the reply. Struck part of my initial comment. NorthAmerica1000 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed4u is back.[edit]

Alltimeintheworld is the new sock. This person just won't quit. Helpsome (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind if I extend Fixed4u's block to indefinite? I can't imagine why we'd want a repeat socker to be unblocked without a convincing unblock rationale. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If you think it's for the best, then I don't mind. After a very brief glance at his contributions, it seemed like he has done some good work here, and perhaps got into a frustrating situation that he dealt with poorly. It seems like he has gotten the message for the time being, so I figured that an extension of the block was sufficient. However, if indef blocks are more common in these situations, then please feel free to modify it. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 21:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User contribution tool[edit]

Hi Scotty. Are you still looking after this tool? If so, there's a small Unicode (I think) bug in it. Clicking "Edits by user" on an article history page like Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles results in an incorrect parsing of the em-dash. [1] --NeilN talk to me 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Put up or shut up[edit]

Here [2] you are calling me corrupt, specifically " The corruption of your character is alarming sometimes, as is your lack of impartiality and sense of fairness."

If there is some corruption of my character, either document it here or strike it. It is a personal attack, and yes, conduct unbecoming of an admin. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a rather antagonistic attitude. I'll take your antagonism and fire it right back at you. My answer to your request is: No. I will neither document it nor strike it. I await your response with anticipation. Oh, and I suppose your comment about how I lack empathy is now considered a perfectly cordial and polite way to carry on a discussion with someone? ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

  • Scotty, I don't know if I've ever been banned from your talk page--if so, my apologies. Let me say two quick things and I'll be on my merry way. First, I wish you hadn't called Dennis corrupt. I really wish you hadn't. Not just because he's not corrupt, but also because, well, it's a personal attack. Second, I saw your comment (from earlier today?) on Eric's talk page, about your change of heart, and I really appreciate that. You and I will probably never see eye to eye on lots of things, but I do appreciate that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Solar cycle 1[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Solar cycle 1 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All information on this page can be found in the List of solar cycles table.

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. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Solar cycle 2[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Solar cycle 2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All information found in the List of solar cycles table

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. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Solar cycle 1 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar cycle 1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar cycle 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

About Tim Leffel´s article deletion[edit]

Hello, first I want to thank you for your comments about my work, in I am sorry that the page has been deleted, because there is a lot of travel writers on Wikipedia with less notability than the subject of the article. Anyway, my question is if I can recover the deleted article talk page, because the subject of the article wants to see it. Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have emailed you the wikitext of the article. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have emailed you too.--Ane wiki (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

search engines[edit]

Greetings all this harmful talk from administrators of wikipedia about deleting miss multiverse is appearing on search engines, would you kindly place the codes required so this does not happen thank you Jose Cuello (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, which objectionable pages are showing up on search engines? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

you can find this by entering Miss Multiverse (2nd nomination) on google. Would you kindly provide the article so i can go ahead and put this on wikipedia alternative websites, i dont have access to the deleted information. thank you Jose Cuello (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiverse wikipedia delete salt on google. Please delete or place the necessary codes to remove this embarrassing situation because less important pageants appear on wikipedia and that makes this one appear as incompetent when in reality it is not, as i have learned rival pageant enthusiast take the steps to remove other pageants, and administrators confronting each other as if its a personal war and forgetting its all about the article, inconsistencies like this one are what give wikipedia a bad reputation. What will you do about the dozens of pageant articles that are not meeting the policies? Jose Cuello (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a noindex keyword to the AfD page. This should prevent search engines from indexing this page and including it in search results. Since Google has already indexed it once, it may take them a long time (possibly weeks or months) before they remove that page from their search results, and there isn't much we can do to make them remove it more quickly. I'd be happy to email you a copy of the deleted article, but you don't have an email address registered to your account. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cant this page be put for incubation instead of salted? there are many sources appearing every day, furthermore, please notice that this was all motivated by an administrator that made it his priority based on rivalry with me and not because of the nature of the article Jose Cuello (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am having serious difficulties absorbing the inconsistency and real reasons for this decision, i mean look at this: page

How can this be in wikipedia and the other one not? Jose Cuello (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a valid question. Each article is judged on its own, not in comparison to other articles on Wikipedia. It may be that the Miss Black Universe article would also be deleted if it was nominated. It may be that the Miss Black Universe has better sources. Who knows. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on that. The page is salted because it has been deleted and recreated multiple times, and there is a strong consensus that it currently doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you are intent on getting an article on Wikipedia about it, I would suggest creating an article in your userspace (i.e. User:Jose Cuello/Miss Multiverse). Once the article is complete, and you are confident that there are enough sources that conform with WP:GNG, then start a request at WP:DRV to have the article unsalted, and point to your userspace draft. At that point, editors will look at the draft and judge whether or not the article should be unsalted and your draft article moved in its place. However, with four AfD's already ending with a "Delete" decision, your draft article will have to be significantly better than the previous articles to change anyone's mind. There's a good chance that you'll put a lot of work into creating a draft, only to have the request for unsalting be denied. It may just be that this competition is simply not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and no amount of work on your part will change that. That's not necessarily the case, but it might be. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok ‑Scottywong the following request is not intended to upset or question anyone, i mean it with good intentions... i will ask two favors from you, and that is a news link to an article (as an example) that has in-depth information or coverage about an event, preferably pageant the second is a link to a pageant wikipidia article (to see as example) that with your experience you believe that with no doubt qualifies by all means (excluding Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Earth or Miss International) I am just not experienced enough to fully understand this and those examples can help me see the difference or what works. Thank you in advance Jose Cuello (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, please understand that when an admin closes an AfD, he/she doesn't inject their own opinion. My job as the closing admin was to read the discussion and decide if there was enough agreement among the participants to come to a consensus. That's it. Secondly, I am not an expert in beauty pageants. In fact, I have virtually no interest in them whatsoever. I took a quick look through some of the articles in Category:Beauty pageants, and found a lot of pretty terrible articles that would probably get deleted if they were ever nominated for deletion. I was unable to find any pageant articles (outside of the list you asked me to exclude) that are unequivocally notable, although I only looked for a minute or two.
Honestly, I think you would be best served by full reading and digesting the contents of WP:GNG, to get an idea of what is notable and what is not notable. WP:EVENT has additional information on the notability of events. If you're looking for advice from people who are well-versed and interested in beauty pageants, you might try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 01:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How come administrators are not going to the page of Miss Supranational and Mrs. Universe to vote for delete or keep as they did with Multiverse, why was there such high interest for Multiverse? (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please remove that horrible huge red tag from the Multiverse deleted wikipedia page and make it that multiverse just does not appear at all, what is the point of wikipedia not wanting to have a page for it but then having a big banner that it is deleted and a list of multiple derogatory comments (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why there is less interest in other pageant article deletion discussions. Although, I doubt it is a vast wiki-conspiracy against you. The red deletion notices cannot be removed. They are there so that if anyone tries to create that article in the future, they will be able to see the history of the article.
And just as an aside, you'd probably have more success here if you tried to be a little more polite, a little less accusatory, and if you actually made an effort to read some of the policies and guidelines that govern the way Wikipedia works. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I already read enough: So i am 100% clear of what happened. Your recommendations (be more polite etc..) Is another example of how its not about the article its about making allies to support it. I showed you the other pageant pages so you can see that there is no conspiracy against those pages, no motivation, no angry administrator calling his gang to come have it deleted. Scottywong, seriously, do you really not see something fishy in all of this? am i and so many others just paranoid or something?

This is the worst internet experience and community of people i have ever seen. how can you expect me to turn back in to the polite person i was?

Then wikipedia has the nerves to place a pop up asking me to donate money, as if i would be motivated to fund this. (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't see anything fishy, and you have not provided evidence of anything that is even remotely unusual with this AfD. A simple lack of participation at other AfD's is not evidence of a conspiracy on this AfD. If you look through the millions of past AfD's, you will find that some get a lot of attention, and others get very little attention. You continue to allege that an "angry administrator" has called his gang to get the article deleted, yet you provide no evidence of this happening, and you even provide no evidence of any kind of connection between DGG and any of the voters in the AfD to substantiate your claims that all of the delete voters in the AfD were DGG's friends. In my opinion, your attitude and actions here seem to be driven by a combination of your unfamiliarity with the way Wikipedia works, and an emotional reaction to the judgment that Miss Multiverse is not a notable beauty pageant.
Note that Wikipedia administrators are not the all-powerful overlords that you think they are. They are just regular editors, who have access to a couple of extra buttons that normal editors don't have. Their arguments are not given any additional weight over non-administrators, and an AfD started by an admin has no greater chance of deleting an article than an AfD started by a non-admin. It is true that, on average, most admins have been around at Wikipedia longer than most non-admins, and therefore it is likely that they have become friendly with other editors that share their opinions. There have been cases where groups of editors have "ganged up" at AfD's in an attempt to sway the discussion one way or another. However, these types of behaviors are usually easily visible to the trained eye, and are quickly shut down. There is no evidence of any foul play at this AfD, and to my knowledge, DGG has no history of attempting anything like that, nor does he have any kind of conflict of interest with respect to beauty pageants.
Generally, you won't win any friends here if all you can offer is constant complaining, casting allegations of wrongdoing with no evidence, irrational paranoia, walls of text, and continual misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just giving you my honest appraisal. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about Thomas.W not about DGG, I surely don´t care if multiverse has notability or not, i am concerned about how this person pulled in his contacts to vote delete, acting as the wikipedia cartel of medellin, if you read carefully, others there exposed him, stating they did not appreciate his messages contacting them asking for a delete vote, he also posted on diverse pages of wikipedia encouraging that i get banned from wikipedia and pulled other strategies to succeed.

My point is that other pages related to pageant, that have less references etc.. are there and continue to be there, if removing articles with no notability is a serious work that wikipedia is engaged, then why are they not motivated to go there and do the same. The reality is no one gets paid, its not a job, this is just a fun tic tac toe sort of game for many.

its clear multiverse was sabotaged and you know with your experience that ¨notability¨ is not an exact science and can be tipped to both sides specially when you have enough experience and buddies to tip the balance to your advantage, other strategies such as puppeting are used to reach these goals, notability is not black or white with concrete parameter, in this case Thomas.W made it his primary goal and personal issue to retaliate.

If the case is that you are not one Thomas.W buddies, then you took an unfair action before reading all the arguments in the forum, it is unbelievable and practically impossible to not notice the persecution of Thomas.W

it is not reasonable, that an article can be deleted and salted based on such motivations, it is not collaboration when people decide to sabotage instead of collaborate and i mean sabotage because me and others believe with no doubt that we established enough articles from reliable news papers with complete coverage. so yes WE ARE OUTRAGED with a feeling of abused by unfair conduct from others.

I appreciate your advice regarding the friends politics or culture of wikipedia, but you are not corresponding with a child or an ignorant, i am well aware of basic rules of life such as, negative energy or attitude pulls negative energy in return, but this is an encyclopedia a place to post article not a personal relationship or dating board, i am here to write articles based and this should not be subject to friends politics, i am upset because of confronting a system that is unfair, with people that are anonymous and don´t face any penalties for the abuse they apply on new wikipedia users.

Again i tell you, that i am not the only one that feels this way, find on Google the very bad experience so many people have received from wikipedia administrators, wikipedia is gaining a worst reputation each day, creating a negative fan base, this is not me saying it, the CEO of wikipedia was on CNN just a few days ago admitting to this, and stated that they are working on solving this situation, so NO, i am not paranoid or fabricating this...

Now... how about you? what do i have to do? kiss your behind, put my tail down and humbly ask you to kindly look in to this? thats exactly it... because this is not a job for you... its not your responsibility to do something, its an unpaid job that requires the use of your time... For you to do something a person either has to motivate you by becoming pleasant and becoming a wiki friend or it could be motivated by a situation that strikes your emotion makes you angry enough to go and apply your powers to sabotage and get your ways, this is how wikipedia works Jose Cuello (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Thomas.W is not an administrator. Second of all, there is absolutely no evidence of improper canvassing related to this AfD, nor were there any editors who said that "...they did not appreciate [Thomas.W's] messages contacting them asking for a delete vote". Finally, my opinion is that you need to find a new hobby. Wikipedia isn't for you. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No evidence? search for the following text within the AfD debate:

1) stop inserting messages in people's talk pages that mislead. This is a very annoying practice. I have been so long around that it won't matter for me, but if you do this to new Wikipedians you will chase them away.

2) "I don't like what's been said on my talk page" is not a reason for deletion.

"Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." In this case it was just people imposing their opinions motivated by emotions and with no professional background on the subject like pageants for example, if at the end an article remains based on consensus of opinions versus people that know the topic, wikipedia then should be called opinion-pedia.

If you did not see the two comments i found and pasted here for you, then my believe is that you took a quick fly above the information, counted the votes, made a quick conclusion then deleted and salted the article, i don´t believe you took the time to read and evaluate the references and news articles......... Since you gave your opinion about me, then here is mine... My opinion is that If you are going to do something, do it well; otherwise my friend, the one that has to find a new hobby is you Jose Cuello (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your "beliefs" are based on an absurd misinterpretation of the above quotes. Your accusation is that Thomas.W canvassed other editors to bring them to the AfD and get them to vote for the deletion of the article. The quotes that you've provided above, when read in context, have nothing to do with canvassing. Quote #1 is User:gidonb asking Thomas.W to stop posting messages on gidonb's talk page, nowhere else. If you look at the thread on gidonb's talk page (User talk:Gidonb#Miss Multiverse), you'll see that Thomas.W makes no mention of asking anyone to come to the AfD to vote for the deletion of the article. Quote #2 is User:Pigsonthewing commenting that he believes Thomas.W's deletion rationale to be based on an emotional reaction to your comments on Thomas.W's talk page. While Thomas.W does mention your comments on his talk page within his comments on the AfD, those comments only said that the only reason Thomas.W decided to vote at all in the AfD was because of your comments on his talk page. His actual rationale for wanting to delete the article is completely valid and policy-based. But again, none of this has anything to do with Thomas.W posting messages trying to get other editors to "gang up" and vote for the deletion of the article.
Your arguments are ridiculous, and it's clear that you have no evidence for any of the accusations you're making, nor do you even seem to have a basic understanding of the accusations you're trying to make, nor do you seem to have the ability to read and comprehend a discussion. I tire of this conversation, and will probably not contribute to it any further. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 02:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Eruthu Paar Kodi closure[edit]

Actually, the nominator had withdrawn the delete request to pursue the merger. diff. Thanks. (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Once a discussion has started and has had significant input from other editors, it is generally not immediately closed if the nominator withdraws their nomination. Especially not when there is a strong consensus one way or another. I noticed the nominator's change of heart, and treated it as if one of the voters switched their vote from delete to merge. It didn't significantly change the consensus for me. ‑Scottywong| express _ 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I just meant this in the context of your comment that you would restore the article for merging if anyone wanted to and that at least the two of us do. Thanks (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the article, and turned it into a redirect to Flag of Tamil Eelam. The full revision history of the article is available. Please feel free to merge the content, and please feel free to change the redirect target, but please don't restore the content of the article. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and I vow not to restore it. (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Derwick August[edit]

Hi Scotty! I noticed you've made some edits to Derwick Associates in the past and I recently made some changes to the page, along with related pages, myself to try and improve it. I wanted to invite you to take a look at the current version and see what you think.Righteousskills (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyame UFO incident (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi Scotty,

I was wondering if you could provide a rationale for why this article should be deleted.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what you might think, it is not my job to provide a rationale for why the article should be deleted. Rather, it is my job to read and interpret the rationales provided by the AfD participants, and judge whether or not there is a consensus to delete the article. Seven different rationales have already been provided by the participants of the AfD who voted to delete the article, and those rationales were more convincing to me than the two provided by the participants who voted to keep the article. If you're looking for a rationale, please re-read the AfD discussion. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to come up with your own rationale. I'm asking you to provide your interpretation of the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Well, the first thing that must be noted is that seven editors recommended deletion, while only two recommended keeping the article. While it is true that AfD's are not about counting heads, the large disparity in votes must be noted, and the only way this AfD will be closed as anything other than "delete" is if the delete voters' rationales are not policy-based, or if they are unequivocally refuted by the keep voters' rationales.
This AfD, like many others, comes down to notability and sources. For the article to survive, it must be shown that is passes WP:GNG, which is to say that it must be shown that there are multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in a significant way. It was not adequately demonstrated that these sources exist. I thought that Dcs002's comments at the bottom of the AfD summed up the consensus quite nicely, and clearly demonstrated why the UFO Hunters book does not qualify as a source from which notability arises. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

AFD voting analysis tool error[edit]

Hi Scottywong, I recently found your tool that allows user to see their afd voting history. I entered my name and it gave me a fatal error. Are you aware of any problems or is something wrong on my side? Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I no longer maintain this tool. I believe User:Σ maintains it now. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 18:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the link to usersearch seems to be broken, I've asked about that at User talk:Σ#Usersearch broken?. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)