User talk:Scott MacDonald: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:28, 15 December 2009

Archives may be found in the page history.

Frank G. Jackson

Thanks for working on this mess. I hate to bother you, but do you have any references to add to this? I am tempted to send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no references, although google might help. Please do not send it to afd, where it would certainly survive. If you think any of the unreferenced material is in the least contentious, then please simply remove it citing "BLP".--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

I accidentally reverted your recent edit to John Silber, sorry about that, and un-reverted. GSMR (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue

Hi there. As our resident BLP guru, could you comment on this section in the BLP noticeboard? The issue is also being discussed on the article talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Secret/BLP

User:Secret/BLP you may want to participate and expand this RFC before it goes live, the best solution to this BLP problem is probably an consensus based RFC. Secret ^account 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Fort

Hi Scott, I added a speedy for not being notable but it was removed by an IP, there is nothing left..is it not better to remove it altogether? Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your ancient user talk page history

Hi Doc, would you mind undeleting, or history merging, or doing something to your old talk page history? It can all be found using Special:Undelete; that list contains other user talk pages of yours as well. I don't believe that user talk page history, especially of active users, should be hidden from non-admins, and a current guideline agrees with me. User talk pages are contributed to by many users, and when user talk page history is deleted, conversations are lost. If you want me to do the history merging, I can do that; if there's personal info in those *user talk* archives that you don't want retrieved, that's OK too. There is one user talk archive with history that you haven't touched, User talk:Doc glasgow/28April06, that you might want to deal with as you see fit. Graham87 13:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are all two years or older, so I can't imagine there serve any useful purpose for the project. However, If anyone has a reason to need access to them, I'll be happy to undelete them.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prod of Alina Maksimenko

I've removed the prod tag from Alina Maksimenko because she participated in the 2009 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships, which would allow her to pass WP:ATHLETE. Here is one source that lists here as a participant [1]. Calathan (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the source in the article. Otherwise, that's fine.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do much writing of articles, just patrolling prods, but I'll try to add it in. Calathan (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS question again

Hello. Another dumb question. Is OTRS ticket number 2008051610002328 a valid ticket for a permissions release? I got this off the German Wikipedia, de:Datei:Yucca distribution capsular fruited species I southwest,midwest USA, Mexico Baja California, Canada overview I B.jpg. I have a sinking feeling that I read somewhere that the Germans have their own OTRS system, so perhaps I need to ask on the German Wikipedia? Hope not! Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually on OTRS any more. I simply sit sometimes in #wikimedia-otrs on irc, which lets me ask people who are. Best best is to ask there or try WP:OTRS. (Although someone may be watching this page and willing to help.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll try IRC. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any OTRS volunteer can view the ticket, but it's in German so you're going to need to find somebody who can read it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prod of Brian Anderson (skateboarder)

I know the skateboarding community are terrible at adding sources to articles, but the article did note that he was named Skateboarder of the Year in 1999, which makes it likely that there will be sources about him. And indeed there are (did you look for sources?), so I've added them and removed the prod. Fences&Windows 01:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working through thousands of totally unsourced bios to sift out the totally unsuitable. In this case I used prod as I though the article might be sourcable - happy that someone has managed to fix it up. Good work.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Milorad Ulemek

Why? /User_talk:Ajdebre

The article claimed the individual was a war criminal, but lacked any sourcing whatsoever. It therefore violated the policy on living people in every version. I am happy to undelete the article if someone is willing to edit it to meet the sourcing requirements.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 I know the skateboarding community are ''terrible'' at adding sources to articles, but the article did note that he was named Skateboarder of the Year in 1999, which makes it likely that there will be sources about him. And indeed there are (did you look for sources?), so I've added them and removed the prod. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 01:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 :I'm working through thousands of totally unsourced bios to sift out the totally unsuitable. In this case I used prod as I though the article ''might'' be sourcable - happy that someone has managed to fix it up. Good work.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 08:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-==Odd block==
-I don't understand [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_14&diff=next&oldid=331618063 this edit of yours]. Why did you delete the entire comment and not only the second half? In the first half, Dekkappai votes keep, with a clear reason.
-In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_14&diff=next&oldid=331619561 this edit] you deleted Dekkappai's posting of the same message, slightly rephrased.
-You then blocked Dekkappai for 48 hours, citing an earlier message in which you merely asked him to AGF and did not warn him about any more serious infraction, let alone about the risk of a block.
-And as Dekkappai has pointed out, in your block of him you deleted his keep vote in a CfD in which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2009_December_14&action=historysubmit&diff=331604886&oldid=331604781 you had voted delete].
-I do not think that you are in the best position to block Dekkappai, and I regard your deletion of his keep vote and your prevention of his reposting it as improper. I suggest that you unblock him. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC) .... typo fixed 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-:For goodness sake. Feel free to replace the vote, but I'm certainly not unblocking a user who twice posts a comment wishing that other users "rot in hell".--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-::I have reported this matter to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_requested. ANI for review]. But I consider it a waste of time.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 15:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-Don't worry Scott. There are some people who would argue if you said the sky was blue. Policy, and our best practices are in line with your block. I agree reducing it to 24 hours makes sense. Keep up the good work. [[User:Chillum|Chillum]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:Chillum|Ask me]])</sup></small> 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-* Although I agree with the block, I don't think archiving within a couple of hours would be wise - it has resulted in turmoil before. Maybe after a few more hours or something? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-**I will not be archiving this myself at all.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-***Of course. :) But as you are the user who is second most affected by the discussion, if you keep an eye on it and make the request again after some time rather than this early, it'd be a result without potential turmoil. Not something you need to do, but it is worth thinking about. Regards, [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-::If you want to avoid conflict, then shorten it to time served yourself. You never should have done it in the first place  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-:::Avoid conflict? What do you mean by that? There has already been discussion on this matter and there is general agreement. This has received plenty of review already and there is no consensus for your point of view. [[User:Chillum|Chillum]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:Chillum|Ask me]])</sup></small> 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-:::::::I have shortened it already, in line with my reading of consensus. Do you read the consensus on ANI differently? No-one else has suggested shortening to time served. I believe the current block reflects consensus. Personally, I favour longer blocks in such instances, but I accept that's not consensus either.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-::Yes, I do disagree with your reading of consensus--but I disagree even more with your attempt to judge consensus in a matter involving yourself, as I do with your blocking in a matter involving yourself.  Had you left it to someone else to warn or even block him, the whole matter would not have arisen.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-:::A minor point, but moot once my call had been homologated. Frankly, I've wasted several hours on this only because people like you get more obsessed with silly process technicalities, than with trying to prevent obviously hostile interactions. It is precisely this type of foolishness which has resulted in this being such an unpleasant place to work. Folk run amok while pen-pushers waste time insisting on form filling. I have learned my lesson, next time I'll poke someone on IRC to do the block.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 18:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-::I do not think you yet perceive the real lesson:  when someone insults you personally, let them be. When someone insults another person, especially a relatively defenseless member of the community,  consider whether to intervene.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-:::I don't think you get it either. Stop straining on gnats and swallowing camels. I am uninterested in your lessons. I was vindicated by consensus and common sense and will act identically again. Now, stop wasting my time (and yours).--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-::::If you act again in such a manner I will make a case for misuse of tools. A user is clearly upset - rather than trying to calm the situation down, your wholesale removal of the post inflamed the situation - you could have just taken the naughty words out but no, you had to take it all out with a predictable response. The blocking ''after'' that yourself in what is essentially a mini-edit war. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 23:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-:::::Oh for goodness sake. I don't believe this. I saw a clearly (not remotely borderline) outrageous post, reverted it, warned the user. It was replaced with the same venomous attack, I reverted again and blocked - and posted the matter to ANI for community review. It was wholeheartedly endorsed, and the only quibble was the length of the block, which although I felt was exceedingly lenient - I reduced per consensus. And you dismiss this as an "edit war". I'm afraid you've just dropped nine levels in my estimation. Would I do the same again? Yes, without a doubt. The project is the mess it is because of reactions like this - you are creating a climate where gross trolling incivility is excused and admins trying to put a stop to it are hounded. Now, please go away. This is a waste of time.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-Folks, this block of Scott's has received plenty of attention. Scott put it up for review, admins not involved in the slightest agreed with it, a consensus was formed that it should be shorter and it was shortened, the blocked user got his/her opinion placed in the CfD sans the nastiness. There is no reason to continue harping on the matter. I have not seen such a tempest in a teapot in ages, people get blocked for that sort of thing all of the time and Scott did the correct thing seeking a review of his actions. [[User:Chillum|Chillum]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:Chillum|Ask me]])</sup></small> 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 ==Deletion of [[Milorad Ulemek]]==