User talk:Scottywong

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of articles about music and film festivals

As a courtesy notification, I made reference to one of your deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals and would welcome your perspective there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

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! Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Pride PDX Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 https://www.facebook.com/events/804661466218694 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.

IssueTrak - Request for Reconsideration

Hello, Scottywong. You have new messages at User:Buffalo747/sandbox.
Message added 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi - I've reworked the IssueTrak page and would value your feedback as you initially deleted the article in 2012. I believe the article meets the requirements for notability and objectivity. Your review, feedback, and ultimate approval of the article would be greatly valued! Thanks, Buffalo747 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Piano rock

The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano rock (2nd nomination)‎ is unsatisfactory; please reconsider. Andrew (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason that you find it unsatisfactory? Or is it unsatisfactory simply because it's not the way you wanted it to close? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 14:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the closing statement with a mention of the specific policy that demands the deletion of that article. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Scotty tools

Hey Scotty, I noticed the other day that scottytools has no ui on labs and the toolserver account has expired. I was wondering if you had any plans on renewing the toolserver or getting things up and running to be able to access your tools on labs? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't log in to toolserver to renew my account for some reason, and scottytools was not created by me, and is not maintained by me. I ported some of my tools over to labs, and other editors have ported other tools to labs. Not all of the tools have been migrated. Talk to User:Σ about scottytools, I believe he is maintaining it. The other tools that I ported are here and here. ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westshore Town Centre‎‎

How are you going to know how the AfD turns out if you close it the way that you did?  Speaking for myself, I closed half a dozen windows regarding this AfD this morning, so I could focus on an AfD that I felt was a higher priority.  Do you really want to talk about this, when you can relist?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevant related discussions:

• User_talk:Amatulic#WP:Articles for deletion/Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand) regarding this editor's similar objection to another article I deleted.
• WP:REFUND#Westshore Town Centre, request for undeletion without first waiting for a reply to the query to you above.

Just FYI. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this page you will see that this admin is semi-retired.  If you look at the contributions history, you will see that he is gone for days at a time.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

...and Scottywong was just here yesterday. Scottywong, would you respond? As I explained to Unscintillating at WP:REFUND#Westshore Town Centre, administrators generally do not override the decisions of other administrators, particularly AFD decisions, without discussion on the admin's talk page or DRV. Do you object to restoring the deleted history under the existing redirect? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed this message last time I checked in here. The only thing I'm not clear on is why you want to restore the article history. What's the purpose; what do you plan on doing with it? ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Unscintillating:, this is a question for you, not me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, If this is deemed to be a non-controversial refund, my discussion with the closing admin becomes moot.  If it is deemed to be controversial, then I have exhausted a potential remedy, and made a good faith effort in his absence to find a simple solution...and I can wait for a reply upon his return, go to WP:DRV, or consider other alternatives including doing nothing.  This is the answer to your question, as to why I requested the WP:REFUND.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD for Factlet

Hello, Scottywong. I believe your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factlet mischaracterizes the discussion. (Though, of course, you should note my keep !vote in the discussion.) While there are indeed 5 votes citing WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, they are votes as opposed to !votes; they make no argument or reference to the article, but merely name the policy. One of the five voters, Ad Orientem, later added a comment, while slakr make a substantive argument for "Delete or Merge to Factoid." The nominator, LtPowers, also made a policy-based assertion, that the word is a neologism, though this and LtPowers' later assertion that William Safire coined the word was contested in argument with other commenters.

On the other hand, five participants made substantial arguments either to keep the article or to merge it with Factoid. I discount one additional keep !vote that appears to be based on personal opinion.

Obviously, your judgement of the arguments may differ from mine, but your comment on closing, "No evidence that an article on this topic can ever be more than a dictionary definition," appears to ignore not only the arguments in the discussion but also the article content – including at least three secondary sources discussing the word, and perhaps more that I can't see since the page was deleted – that already expanded the article beyond a definition.

It is my personal opinion that temporary un-deletion and then merger to Factoid is appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to restore the article to your userspace for the purpose of merging it, if that is acceptable to you. ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine. Do you know whether I need to note anything in particular for licensing and attribution if I merge content from the userfied page? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored to User:Cnilep/Factlet. I don't think you need to worry about anything related to licensing or attribution. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I restored some of the deleted factlet material to the current factoid article, hopefully helpfully. Wondering if it is okay if I do a redirect page of Factlet => Factoid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)