User talk:Scott

Old talk: 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009

---

Problematic editing by User:Galassi

Hello, you previously blocked User:Galassi] for falsely reverting other editors with "vandalism" edit summaries. This editor continues to do that. And has additional problematic editing. If you have a moment it would be helpful to pursue these issues with this editor in the interest of helping to maintain the quality of Wikipedia's content. Thanks, 87.231.131.227 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing problematic there, just some difficulties in translating from Italian and Russian. The IP user should consider WP:GOODFAITH, as well as discussing _before_ blind reverting.-Galassi (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] - "nonsence" edit summary - check Times magazine article [2] wording and text restored. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it to AN/I, not my talk page. The matter is closed. -- Earle [^t/_c] 16:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool

Greetings, Earle. You recently blocked User:Ani medjool for politically-motivated deletion of material, and promised lengthier blocks for repeat occurrences. At this time I question whether an editor who says this, proceeds to act upon it unilaterally in a long list of articles, and has difficulty writing "Israel" or "Israeli" without quotation marks, can ever be expected to contribute objectively and constructively to Wikipedia. The latest round of edits by this individual look a lot like a repeat occurrence to me. Thank you for your help with this. I value your good judgment. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

James Sassoon

Please would you include him in template:Sassoon family tree. I left a note on the talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice requested

I appreciate your initial review of my article Quadrivial Quandary and am interested in your comments on recent edits. Have I better established the notability of the subject? I aim to establish notability within the specific context of word games, and I am considering my article against others that appear in that category. Thanks, Rudi Seitz (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani and Abu Bakr al-Jurjani

Excuse me, I know it's a long time ago, but throughout 2008 you edited Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani, then went on to create Abu Bakr al-Jurjani which seems to be about the same person. Am I mistaken, or was there a reason for this? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I extracted both of those from one article, al-Jurjani. To my understanding, they are actually two different people - notice the bibliographies don't match - although contemporaries. We could do with having an expert clarify this, though. I'm leaving this comment on the talk page there too for further discussion. -- Earle [^t/_c] 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this is just one person, for reasons given on the talk page. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats etc

Greetings: A few months back I started receiving anonymous threats via email (legal and otherwise) about my so-called "disruptive, non-pov, non-neutral" edits to arab-related articles claiming I was inserting "false" information about Israel and its "theft" of arab culture, land, history etc. I was also receiving threats that I would be somehow "punished" on wikipedia for my actions on against editors at AE who support "world-view NPOV truths" about Israel. Seeing as how the AE admins summarily ignored my complaints about such behavior towards me, (and the threats kept coming) I decided to disassociate myself from both WP Israel and WP Judaism.

Its a shame that ARBPIA and its associated problem resolution boards (AE etc) have been taken hostage by those who seek to punish/alienate editors who do not share their view...but its even more of a shame that no one seems to care when a productive editor (with absolutely no enforcement, block or any other sort of negative history) is forced to leave the project because of others who insist on making it their personal battleground. Warm regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry to hear that. Best wishes, -- Earle [^t/_c] 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

Might be a joe job from wolof359 [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That account is stale, plus since they were sent off-wikipedia using a gmail account, the originating IP address is hidden. Besides, that sort of behavior in and of itself, and responses I received from Admins, are just a symptom of a greater problem that exists in certain areas here on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be encyclopedia not a battlefield. Unfortunately, that is what it has become...and its obvious that those "in power" are too wound up in the drama and fighting to be impartial and put a stop to it. I'm done. I won't be threatened, harassed, stalked or baited into a "political battle" on what should be non-political issues/items anymore. I'm just done. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For Fixing my "incoherent mess masquerading as writing". :) [4] --Duchamps_comb MFA 02:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you like Pura (Balinese temple) article. Thank you for your english grammar edits, the article is more pleasant to read now. (^_^) (Gunkarta (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/Derbyadhag

I'm baffled and would like to know how you came to this conclusion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This user has gone on a spree of replacing mentions of east London with "metropolitan Essex". This is pure trolling. I've blocked them until they can explain themselves. See their user talk. -- Earle [^t/_c] 00:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF? Whether it is Essex or London depends on whether it is pre- or post- 1968 London government reorganisation, and perhaps education and discussion are better than blocking. In the meantime, I'll look at her Talk page. I'll get back to you. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now seen it. Please review your block, as it does not seem to have been imposed within WP:BLOCK, and especially not with the requisite warnings. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As I commented on the user's talk page, this account was previously legitimate but has suddenly reappeared to go on a vandalism spree. Therefore I believe there is a strong possibility that it has been hijacked. As stated at Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only, vandalism-only accounts "are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely". Until the possibility of this account being compromised, and hence vandalism-only, has been eliminated, this is the safest course of action. -- Earle [^t/_c] 01:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at previous contribs before this latest "spree", it is clear that the original owner of this account, if different from the current, knows what they are talking about. I think it's a little strong to call recent edits disruptive when they are not overtly vandalistic, but merely perhaps making a point. My opinion would be different if those edits were completely outside acceptable editing policy, but I don't see that they are; and certainly, you haven't asked the editor for an explanation of those edits or to confirm that they are the same person before blocking. Content disputes, unless utterly egregious, are not regarded as vandalism, and I am still baffled. It is possible that an unblock request will be posted however, and in the absence of cogent evidence of a compromised account, I would be inclined to grant it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Referring to East London as Metropolitan Essex is entirely correct. I propose to unblock unless someone gives me a good reason in the immediate future. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Derbyadhag

You have recently blocked this editor for alleged vandalism. I am sorry, but the edits you quote are entiely accurate, and are in no sense vandalism. Referring to East London as metropolitan Essex is completely correct. I would like you to unblock him, please. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation? Furthermore, look at this edit. Leytonstone was part of the Municipal Borough of Leyton in Essex - until 1963, when it was made part of London by the London Government Act 1963. You can't say that it's "metropolitan Essex", because it hasn't been part of Essex for almost half a century.

Here's another, on an article discussing the protests over the building of the M11 link road (the A12), in which a bland mention of "east London" is changed to "metropolitan Essex". The A12 runs through several areas of east London, including Hackney. Has Hackney ever been in Essex? No.

Derbyadhag made a spray of edits, blindly replacing "east London" with "metropolitan Essex" regardless of accuracy (and in one case, replacing "north London" with "Middlesex" and "west London" with "eastern Middlesex"). The user also made an edit inappropriately introducing archaic English usage into an article[5].

I stand by my actions, and await your explanation. -- Earle [^t/_c] 18:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the word "divers". It may not be current idiom but is certainly not wrong, and most certainly not blockable. Geographic terminology may depend on source, but the basic point is that the edits were not vandalism, and not therefore blockable. Edit-warring at worst.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You have missed the point entirely, which was that a dormant account of a legitimate user suddenly reactivated to be used only for vandalism. It was blocked for safety until they could explain that they had not hijacked it. I can see that this conversation is going nowhere, so let's just leave it. If this account ends up being used for vandalism again, I will luxuriate in being able to say "I told you so." -- Earle [^t/_c] 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, i have posted here twice; but will leave it for now. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked. Rationale on the editor's Talk page. Rodhullandemu 21:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vehicular Cycling

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Vehicular cycling, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted.

Stating "opinion-motivated and untrue" is not a valid reason to simply remove maintenance tags.

First, motivation is not relevant; please assume good faith. Second, the pros and cons of facilities are covered at segregated cycle facilities and at John Forester, and are not covered at Vehicular cycling; that's why criticisms of Forester's views on that (and a whole host of other topics) is not relevant here. Change at issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I stopped assuming good faith the second time you deleted a large block of cited material without attempting to relocate it to a relevant location. -- Earle [^t/_c] 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop assuming good faith too quickly, which is exactly what WP:AGF is intended to prevent. Just because the material is well cited does not mean it is relevant. I feel the issue is already covered well at Segregated cycle facilities, where it is covered extensively and appropriately. Your mileage may vary. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the policy, thank you very much. If you felt the issue was already covered, you could have saved a lot of time and hassle by explaining your feelings on the talk page after removing the material, rather than just deleting it and going on your merry way. -- Earle [^t/_c] 01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the edit summary comment, dated 16:54, July 8, 2010, accompanied with my bold original removal of the section: "Removed Criticism section as irrelevant here since it was entirely comprised of criticisms of Forester and vehicular cycling advocacy, not the topic of this article, which is vehicular cycling.".

Instead of questioning the removal on the article talk page or even on my user talk page, you simply reverted it, along with this comment which did not even address the reason I cited for removing the section (irrelevance): "Restore heavily cited criticism section. The rationale given for its removal was highly misleading. If you have issues with it, raise them on the talk page.". What is "highly misleading" about "entirely comprised of criticisms of Forester and vehicular cycling advocacy, not the topic of this article, which is vehicular cycling"? And, since lack of citation was not the reason cited for removal, why even bring up the undisputed fact that the removed material was "heavily cited"? --Born2cycle (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I reverted it. You deleted it without even bothering to discuss your decision on the talk page. How many times do I have to explain to you that Forester and vehicular cycling advocacy are inextricably part of vehicular cycling as a whole topic? The comment about cited material was to make it clear that your deletion was not just whittling away some chaff, as your comment implied. -- Earle [^t/_c] 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You have never explained how Forester and vehicular cycling advocacy are inextricably part of the practice that happens to be best known as vehicular cycling; you have merely repeated your opinion that that is so as if it is fact, and you just did it again. It's not like Forester invented riding a bike on roads in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is what the article is about. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Stratford panoramas

I will be doing other panoramas of Stratford, however they wont be from the same spot as they've very inconsiderately built an opaque lift shaft about 1 ft away from where I stood to take the two that are on Commons! Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC) (note that I'm most likely to spot any replies on my en.wiktionary talk page)

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Neogeography

Since you declined the speedy deletion, would you be so kind as to restore the attribution history for the article? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean, as in restore earlier revisions? -- Earle [^t/_c] 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Of course that's what you meant. Sorry, I'm tired this evening. Done. -- Earle [^t/_c] 21:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)