(ec)Thanks for the welcome. However, I've never really seen the point of that template, since, over time, the English article will be edited into a new form, perhaps radically different from the French version. So to the French version will change, whereas that template will remain and, since it carries no date, it neither acknowledges which edition of the French article was used, or how much (if any) of the current English text originates from there. Better to acknowledge the translation at the point that we used the fr.wp article, which I did in an edit summary. That shows what came from the French, and when. It's the same when we merge from another en.wp article, we acknowledge it in the edit history, not in the sources list.—Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an oldid parameter that can be used to identify the version translated, though you are right that it should give the date as well. If you attribute in the edit summary, you could refer to the version of the French article used. But that is for convenience really. Your edit summary, minimalist as it was, still provides just enough information for people to trace the history if needed. Technically, the template should also link to the version of the article that was translated, but the assumption seems to be that it was the first version, i.e. the template is for articles that start as translations, not where translations are added later. Carcharoth (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had no intention of translating really. I just translated enough for me to use it for material. But I acknowledged in in the history for fairness.—Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Panthéon in Paris! That article has one of my pics. And redlinks of French aristocracy are a nightmare. We usually don't have articles on the more obscure ones, though the French Wikipedia should, but sometimes we do have an article. Link maintenance has become one of my big interests, and turning redlinks into blue ones without touching either page (you create a redirect) is a little trick I love. I had a quick look through the redlinks, and most of them we don't have articles on, but it turns out Joseph-Marie, comte Vien is at Joseph-Marie Vien, so I've created a redirect for that. Interestingly, the only painter to be honoured with a burial in the Panthéon. For the other redlinks, fr:Modèle:Personnalités enterrées au Panthéon de Paris might help. I'm going to run through that list and throw a couple up for translation or see if we have the articles already under a different name. Carcharoth (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your oppose. I am 100% with you that I need to get more article work under my belt :)
• If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tone
Anyone who calls it "far right" should get out more and meet a real neo-fascist. I am blind in my left eye due to an attack by members of the far right so I've met plenty thanks and I do try to get out more often - but thank you for the patronising tone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being patronising. But if you've been subject to violence from real right-wing nutters, then I'd have thought that you of all people should be able to discriminate between them and the self-aware neo-Cons who seem to be behind Conservapedia.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a good admin, then you are capable of content work. The skills are commensurate. I did say there would be some people with the skills who strangely don't do content, but it is strange and anomalous. So best to oppose.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd do best to re-read what WP:BAN means. Or would you be more comfortable with me resigning the bit, or indeed not editing this work again - which is what a ban would mean? If you think my work here is worthy of being banned say the word. Meta is a short step away for me. Pedro : Chat 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd frankly like to ban anyone who has not some limited level of content experience from being an admin - [2]YOU DID Complex stuff obviously. Pedro : Chat 20:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My fault entirely. Clearly the difference between the word "ban" and the word "ban" missed me totally. Apologies for interupting your evening. Pedro : Chat 20:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you'd read the rest of the sentence which used the word ban, it would have been clearer. The problem is where people see wikijargon instead of reading English sentences.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True - in a text medium it is difficult to impart true meaning and I do understand that - tone of voice, etc etc. I apologies for being hasty but "ban" has a big red warning flag on wiki. On balance though I'm still not sure why I should be de-sysopped given that I do meet your criteria for doing so. Maybe WP would be better though if I lost the bit. I'm allways willing to do what's best for WP. Pedro : Chat 20:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a text medium, you read text, not wikicode jargon. I'm afraid that your dramatic response to this rather reinforces my belief that there is a basic literate skillset needed for adminship and content writing alike, and it is not the same as learning wikiprocess.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad to know I'm not literate. Scott - you mentioned BAN and forgot (I presume) that you did - when I pointed out the evidence you hide behind obfuscation and lawyering. The big man would have just said "yeah, actually ban was the wrong word". Insted you continue to defend you poor choice of words by insulting my literacy. "a basic literate skillset needed for adminship" - indeed but so is the ability to react within the environment and not to view it solely from outside standards - words take on alternative meanings within different contexts and I'm sure you know that. Pedro : Chat 21:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. Ban is a perfectly good word for what I wanted to say. The WP: misunderstanding, and failure to read the sentence, was yours and not mine, and as for "obfuscation and lawyering", I'm hardly the one doing the lawyering, actually I'm using plain English here, whilst your point escapes me. When you are in a hole, stop digging.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was going to ask you to stop digging the hole, but I though I'd be polite. Look Doc G, you used the word ban on Wikipedia. You've been on this site for years and you know very much it has a context here - just the same as server means one thing to the IT guy and another thing to a waiter. Ban, as you well know, is a formal revocation of editing rights for a person. You stated, quite clearly, that you think admins with little content contribution should be banned. I'll let you plead ignorance to context and let's assume you mean "stop being an admin". If that's your honest ideal, that all admins who have not created moderate content should be desysoped, then that's up to you. It's your point of view and I do accept that.Pedro : Chat 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said banned from being an admin - it was crystal clear - you even quoted it with that qualifier. It is one thing you misreading, it is quite another when you quote me without reading what you are quoting and they try to say it is my fault. Frankly, if this is your usual standard of interaction then you are not fit to be an admin, no. Now, be gone.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. No offence, I'm not interested in continuing this. I've said what I've said on the RfA. My oppose was questioned and I responded. This was specific to the RfA and not an attempt to engage in a wider, and probably fruitless debate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, so you know, I had copied the discussion up to the point that it was moved to the RfA's talk page. This is fairly standard practice in RfA's when the discussion leaves the subject's realm. It is still associated with the RfA so people can see it, but the discussion was getting long for the main talk page. This often will happen with discussions pertaining to specific votes as well. (Unfortunately, using boxes to hide extended discussions doesn't work with the numbering system.)---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the discussion has "left the subject's realm" at all. It is highly pertinent. If you want to have an abstract debate elsewhere, fine. But removing my comments because they tend to count against your nominee looks bad.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stephenson bibliography
Thank you for being patient with us as we update the bio for Carl Stephenson.
I apologise if I caused you any unneeded stress for what happened, but please know I was doing it only with the best intentions in mind for the encyclopedia as a whole and not for any other reason. It is not fun, and is also extremely stressful, being the "bad guy" when you are taking numerous ad hom attacks when all you are trying to do is improve the place as a whole. But besides that I also believe in the democracy on decisions, and as I failed to gain any sway while everyone else was convinced otherwise I will not question it again and you may continue to work. –– Lid(Talk)21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, no grudges. We all have our own ideas, and we discuss and get to consensus. The only advice I'd give you is to learn thought it. I'm not asking you to change your ideas about what should or shouldn't be in an encyclopedia - hell there are at least 100,000 biographies of private people I'd delete tomorrow - but when nominating something for deletion, stop and ask "is this the type of thing that the community tends to keep?". If it is, then as much as you think the community is insane, don't bother nominating it. Anyway, to be truthful, I rather expected your deletion nomination to get more support than it did - which is why I argued so strongly. Anyway, we have a result. This time it is the one I wanted....net time? Who knows.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that my nomination got a wholesale lot less support than it would merit based off the strength of my arguments (and I still believe some of them are sound) is one I've come to a conclusion on: Wikipedia delete cases I have made have often hit brick walls of strong keep consensus when the articles themselves look good and have lots of pretty resources but the keeps ignore that just because the article looks pretty does not mean they aren't entirely trivial or using WP:COATRACKs in their content unrelated to their main subject to make the article appear more notable than it actually is (or even to appear notable at all). List of bow tie wearers and Handedness of Presidents of the United States come to mind... –– Lid(Talk)22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever my article's faults, I can assure you it was not a coatrack. It is clearly an article about a (fairly trivial) song - and about what makes the song interesting. It isn't a discussion of any other topic, and contains no off-topic information. As to the rest, my own opinion is that if it is verifiable, can be written neutrally, then keep it. My only exception is with biographical material, because biographical material which is underwatched can be harmful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that logic is that it leads to slippery slopes of triviality - if bow tie wearing is notable than what about fedora wearing, or tuxedo wearers, or people with tattoos? Some might argue that this would be a case of other stuff existing however on their merits and reasons for existing they are entirely identical and then arguing one should be included then the other one should be too, irrelevant of personal givings of bow tie wearing is notable but tattoos aren't. Same goes for handedness of US presidents, eye colour of British Prime Ministers would fall into the same category as would handedness of British PMs for that matter but the arguments for the US presidents inclusion would not be transposed as arguments for a British PM eye colour inclusion. The hypocrisy of one standard for deleting an article and then keeping another when, at their base have identical merit (or in this case lack there of), is something I can not abide by. –– Lid(Talk)23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All decisions on inclusion are ultimately subjective, because life it. And everything exists on a slippery slop - it's just a matter of where. wikipedia isn't arithmetic.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think of it as less math, more rule of law. It may be entirely subjective, but that does not mean there aren't principles and adherents that dictate to an extent the weight and nature of the arguments put before us to prevent an anarchy. That ones arguments based on reason, policy,and precedent can be ignored because it looks pretty seems illogical to me. –– Lid(Talk)23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't keep things either to be inconsistent, inclusion in the face of no merit regulates the concept of notability into something that should no longer be considered at all, and turns wikipedia the free encyclopedia into wikipedia the free webspace. Notability isn't a benchmark that can be crossed based off being aesthetically pleasing, things are notable or they are trivial and including them is indiscriminate. Wikipedia discriminates on this ground specifically. –– Lid(Talk)23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. You are trolling and using wikipedia to annoy a living subject, this is unacceptable. Behave like a troll and a dick, and you risk being called out.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my purpose at all. There are two sides to this discussion, and there seems no reason to call someone a troll just because they take the opposite side from you. And maybe it's a region thing, but where I come from "dick" is a pretty offensive term, so I would advise not using it of specific Wikipedia editors.--Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting like one then. There are not "two sides" here. There are people like you continually trolling and disrupting, and there's everyone else. Stop flogging dead horses to stoke drama, or you'll quickly find yourself booted from this project.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you get if you try to follow the soft redirect? I just get a download of a file that won't open. I thought the meta page must have been deleted, but I've checked on meta now and it's still there, so either there's something wrong with this browser (which is quite likely, since it's IE6) or there's something wrong with the way the redirect is formulated.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it's my browser then. Weird behaviour on its part - it will get to any other meta URL except that specific one (including non-existent pages, and including the "Dick" redirect), but that one it won't touch. --Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scott/ Doc G. Look I think I came to your talk page with an aggressive view that was unwaranted given your position and comments. My apologies. Pedro : Chat 22:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more equally well-thought-out suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Rense is the one claiming that "Big Pharma" is the one that wants your kids on dope, not me, and I bet he has a new claim there, on his site. Powerzilla (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I saw you add it, and thought that's weird... I halfway expected to come here and see you embroiled in some hard core debate with a bunch of angry people attacking you on your talk page---perhaps over the merits of Article building ;-) ---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here seems to be that the article is using a defective notation for citations, so when I remove the material it all appeared unreferenced. I see now some of it actually is. However, blanket reverting me was not so good, as you reinserted some negative material that lacked immediate citation. I've re-removed it. Feel free to reinsert if you provide a supporting reference immediate to it. You might also like to take a look at this--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano
Well, I get your point :), but I don't see why Thatcher didn't just do it himself. I don't think anyone would've seen it as a problem. Black Kite11:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing deceased user
I see you removed Lady Catherine from the candidate list. Might you reconsider? I can't help but wonder if you've seen the very profound point made by Gimmetrowhere, and have truly let it percolate through your mind. Bishonen | talk16:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I not going to edit war. However, only in very backward countries to they keep deceased people on ballot papers......Having said that, Gimmetrow could be right.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Rfa
Scott MacDonald, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.
I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane(talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel(talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe
It really is like banging your head against a brick wall on here. My user page was deleted. user:Ponty Pirate I put myself on a 5 year WIKIBREAK but someone didnt delete my talk page. Just someone do this simple thing for me please.
I would prefer that you don't remove comments from my talk page. In this particular case, I had been trying to help him get unblocked, so this was not an unsolicited message. Everyking (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am just renting a PC in this cafe. I don't know if I have to respond there or here. Please, let me state that I had not yet filed a legal case but only verbal administrative non legal action in our school, which is ongoing probe. So, based on Wiki rules, I can still ask these 3 to be blocked, since they defamed me. Hope you get my point.+--124.106.80.18 (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sponsors
Hi Scott - my problem with "sponsors" is this - universities will rent out space for conferences with little or no interest in what the conference is about - I've used to be involved in this sort of thing when I was still an academic. The current wording suggestions that the UofC endorses the conferences - and as far as I can see that's not supported by the sources provided. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no idea, so I won't edit war over it. But if the thing was sponsored, then the source would say that - and the source is provided. So, I guess you are disputing the interpretation or contents of the source rather than saying there is no source. {fact} indicates a lack of citation - and the citation is provided. Anyway, I won't revert you if you remove the claim, or mark it as contested.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your essay
I was considering putting the essay up at MfD, this was my reasoning "No offense to Scott I just think it is needlessly rubbing salt into the wounds to have this here at this time, right after someone has been desysopped etc. It's causing yet more discussion and jibes on its talk page, when we should all be left/encouraged to get on with things and put it behind us, people have suffered enough:)
It's an interesting essay and he has some perceptive, funny points such as in the possible motions, but I don't think it's very tactful or constructive for people, it's just leading to people prolonging and mutating the arguments in yet another forum to that in which they're being prolonged elsewhere. If it's kept he could rename it and make it a slightly more general essay rather than mentioning someone by name (or perhaps even focusing on a particular recent quarrel)." I wondered if you would consider my suggestion? StickyParkin23:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Slim Virgin has difficulties with the title, or me commenting on her in the essay, then I would treat any request by her to amend, rename or remove with all due seriousness. However, as much as she and I disagree, I find unlikely that she will have any objection to me expressing my opinion in this manner. If she does I will listen respectfully and respond appropriately. Thanks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt she would want to outright object in case objecting made others have something to use as amuunition against her the more, or made her seem other than she would wish to seem. It just seems a bit cruel that's all but maybe that's just me.:) StickyParkin00:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rofl -blocked for a suggestion?:):):) Thanks for the rename- that's a bit better- unless anyone misconstrues the metaphorical 'shooting' and MfD's it again :) StickyParkin23:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was renamed for other reasons. The MfD was pointless, as I warned you. I just hope that the shooting is as metaphorical as the bomb that Newyorbrad is apparently putting under my desk.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A start on some practical things to lead the editors to the palces whcih need extra eyes
As per my candidate statement, I believe it is more practice than theory needed to get on top of BLPs. I reoranised the themplate at the top of WP:AN etc. Note the cunning orange bar which will trick folks into thinking they have a message, and istead they may get into some trouble pages to fix. Do you think this may be at all helpful? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP List of most wanted fugitives in Italy
I reinserted the list. It is an official list as is mentioned in the first paragraph and there is a link to the list in External links. Everything was ALREADY properly referenced, and if you would have made the effort to check that would have been obvious from the start. If you do not know anything about a subject, it is recommended to first discuss major changes in the Talk page. That way you prevent making a fool of yourself and making stupid threats. - Mafia Expert (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links are not references. And we don't discuss unreferenced material whilst it remains in the article. The onus is on the person wishing to keep the material to ensure it is referenced. So, you are welcome to properly reference it reinsert it. However, my "threats" were simply informing you of policy - and that your current behaviour may get you blocked.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have now referenced the list properly, so all is well. However, in future, please do not revert BLP removals unless you are replacing with proper referencing.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your arrogance does not help. I fully agree that information on Wikipedia should be fully referenced, and I am doing this all the time, so don't lecture me. You removed referenced information, two of the people on the list were referenced, apart from the two links in External links, which amounts to vandalism. If anyone should be blocked it is you. You better watch your "current behaviour". - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All were referenced, maybe not on the most appropriate place but still verifiable, and two specifically. You removed fully referenced material. Everybody can make a mistake, but few can admit they made them. In future, you should be more careful and maybe consult the community before you take bold measures. - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly legitimate. I was the one doing the reverting there, when I reverted, the other party should have discussed and not called for back up. The guidelines are/were wrong.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the only sensible thing anyone in that entire wretched thread has said, other than NYB. Seeing the "information wants to be free and screw the consequences!" and "America is the best, sod the rest of the world" BLP-warriors in full crow, whenever it happens, is possibly the single most unappealing sight Wikipedia has to offer. – iridescent17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very grateful if you'd take the time to revisit your oppose vote in my candidacy. I have two reasons for asking.
First, I've had a cold/flu for a week now with a temperature running around 38/38.5: this is affecting my ability/stamina to reply incisively. That said, I don't believe I provided vacuous answers to all 250+ questions. If there are any major remaining evasions, could you please challenge me on them?
Second, I've substantially fleshed out the answers I gave to many questions. One of these is about BLP, which I dealt with separately here. I'd be surprised if you agreed with everything I say but it will at least give you a better opportunity to assess my ability to get a handle large-scale problems.
I see you've withdrawn the deletion nom for this article, which was the right decision. Were you convinced by the arguments and improvements made, or do you still believe deletion was the right course? Uncle G has pointed out there were something like 17 examples of "further reading" listed in the article, many of which dealt directly and primarily with the subject. It seems curious to me that you'd nominate an article for deletion on the basis of it not being a valid concept when there are so many available sources. Can you explain? Thanks, Avruch T 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I explained in the deletion nomination, which I stand by. It isn't a concept, it is a label. There are works on various regimes, which the author labels as "political machines". I suspect that it will be impossible to write an article without reifying a pejoritive adjective, but there you have it.--Scott Mac (Doc)16:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Scott MacDonald; I notice that you have edited Wikipedia during today. Could you please take the time to respond to the outstanding response at User talk:Sladen#December 2008, or to <strike>strike out</stike> the expansion of {{uw-copyright}} that remains on my User talk: page. Appreciations, —Sladen (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't respond to UK law, which isn't relevant anyway. Wikipedia policy is clear that fair use does not apply outside of articles.--Scott Mac (Doc)22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to review the commit itself[4], particularly the author of the commit ("TRS-80"), and to respond as to whether you believe the {{uw-copyright}} was placed on the correct user's talk page. —Sladen (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The transcript was recovered, and accompanied with the following added to the discussion in the same edit (a highly suitable location for such discussion, as it was already the Talk: page);
“
The following is a transcription of a broadcast; the BBC state, "PLEASE NOTE: We are unable to offer transcripts for our programme interviews.".[rf 1] Since the BBC do not provide a transcript, none can be linked to, and the following transcription was created from scratch.
^"Today: Monday 8 December 2008". 2008-12-08. Retrieved 2008-12-08. PLEASE NOTE: We are unable to offer transcripts for our programme interviews. Today is broadcast live and the running order is subject to change. ... 0854 A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site. Sarah Robertson, of the Internet Watch foundation, and David Gerard, of Wikipedia, discuss if censorship of the internet should be allowed.
”
You removed this message (possibly without reading it, certainly without discussion, and definitely without responding yourself). Your removal of the transcript, and particularly of the discussion were rectified by other editors in the minutes afterwards. The citation provided global context (date, time and incident background) just in case you were not aware of immediate events and had accidentally drifted onto the page unaware and without noticing the title of the Project page. —Sladen (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I removed more than I had too, I apologise. Nevertheless, a transcript of copyrighted material is disallowed, and, in project space does not meet our fair use criteria, so you should not have replaced it. I note it was subsequently, and finally removed. That's really all there is to say.--Scott Mac (Doc)11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't a point. Policy is supposed to reflect reality. What's the reality? Let's just admit that Giano is exceptional and move on. Oh, and I'm not on a "side" here. I'm just screaming for the ref to wake up and blow a whistle a bit. Really, I don't care at whom anymore. We just deserve better than the wimpiness that's pissing off, and encouraging, all sides. --Scott Mac (Doc)10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point is a good one, and I will look in. To be honest I gave up looking at BLP discussions not out of lack of interest, but out of the sad conviction that our consensus basis ensured that no significant resolutions would be agreed. I spend months on this, and indeed I did lead the charge on BLPs, but I grew cynical and remain somewhat. As the RfArb, yes I am making a point, but there is no disruption intended, indeed I genuinely believe that arbcom needs to start slapping vested users (and particularly admins) who use the politics to fight the silly wars. See User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral to see where I'm coming from. Perhaps you will strongly disagree, but you should understand that this comes with a strong conviction that enough is enough. Ducking drama simply leads to more drama later. Oh, and good luck in January. You didn't get my vote, but you will have by best wishes and honest respect.--Scott Mac (Doc)11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not getting into the trap of quoting lyrics all night, I'd have to disagree. I've added 43 hours of music in the past week. Damn binges :( Sceptre(talk)22:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I'm still on holiday, really. The only difference is that I'm logged in so my rare article edits are more visible, and I've been able to create one or two articles that I wouldn't have been able to if logged out (or has that rule been dropped? I never bothered to check.)
My impression of this mess is that it might tend to evaporate a bit when the new arbitrators become acculturated. Poachers can be effective gamekeepers,and it keeps them out of mischief. --TS22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me hoping that some admin would go rouge and get rid of non-notable nonsense on a guy who seems famous for being mentally ill. But, you may be right.--Scott Mac (Doc)22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure A7 wouldn't do the trick. Nothing I find supports notability. My first thought was Democratic Presidential candidate asserts notability. Fringe candidate does not. The more I look, the less I find. He is not even notable in a negative way. I'll come back to it and likely A7 it or G1 as a WP:snow. Cheers, Dlohcierekim23:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're both absolutely after the same end goal, to protect BLPs as much as possible, but we're just seeing the first steps of the Next Thing, whatever it ends up being differently. I really honestly and truly believe that seeing what as many people as possible think of the simple "top level" binary options that have been discussed ad nauseum for a couple of years now think, so that actually useful and focused discussions can work off whatever consensus emerges on that front. I hope I'm not coming as a dick--I truly believe that this super high-level view is not the domain of any small group, senior people, or any such thing. You've been the white knight for BLP for ages, and I don't want to step on your toes, but these horses have been beaten to death, flogged some more, and made into soup so many times, I wanted something to happen to move forward. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A popular discussion is good. Polls only work if you get the right result, otherwise you only entrench the opposition who'll quote the poll back at you. Polls don't change minds. If you succeed, I'll take my hat off to you, but it is a high stakes strategy.--Scott Mac (Doc)20:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but sometimes you have to swing for the fences or just say something to the girl, or else you'll never score in either case. I moved our chat there to the talk page--we can debate it out there, or here, but it's gonna just be a big distraction on the main page. Have faith, man. I think people are too smart en masse to let the chance slip by. If they aren't, then no small group has the power or authority to do anything anyway, unless the Foundation or Wales decides to force something. It either has to happen in a way with a wide resounding voice or it never will. I figured it was worth a shot--if not, nothing will happen anyway, and I hate regret.
You're probably THE voice of reason on BLP on this website, right? You used to be. You want this too--in a way that works. All the people that already said Yes handed you a stage--take it. Make it work right, and screw the venue. Wars of the mind, who cares about the format? If it's a revolutionary change, but a good one, that brings good, what does it matter what the starting venue is, or the color of the curtains on the stage? If you stood behind the change, like you started to with your comments (did you notice no one but you did a named section--you and Jimbo, that's it) and drove it, it would happen. Hell, once the nitty gritty comes down if the overall is there for support, I myself wouldn't want anything but a small little section like FAs or the lowest populated BLP letter to start--Z, or Q. To test. If you stand behind it, it will come. rootology (C)(T) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Unfortunately, I'm not the one to lead the charge here. Although I'm very much aware for the nuances of the BLP problem, I'm totally in the dark about flagged revisions. Frankly, I don't really understand how they work, or what the impact of them will be.--Scott Mac (Doc)13:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm the right person. I just tossed out the net, to see what fish came up...
The short version is, you edit a page. That goes into a sort of queue. Look at this history on wikinews. See how it says "Sighted by"? Say a newbie or anon edits a given BLP. Any viewers that see the page--just browsing in, let's say--see the last "sighted" version. All the other pending changes are held back so that only the Sighters or Reviewers or whatever we call them so a simple one-click to "release" them. At least, that's how I understand it... wikinews turned it on long after I really contributed there. There's no way to completely cut out bad stuff, and never will be unless we shut down all edits, which will never happen till someone buys out WP and makes it static in some far off future. But, it gives a huge extra layer of protection to keep crap out and seems to only require minimal work (review it, click it) to release the pending stuff. I don't know if it will fix anything, everything, or something, but I figure at least a short trial on some articles, which consensus is definitely (God willing) heading for, will give us a clue. rootology (C)(T) 02:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed often and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones were which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for reviewing the discussion regarding the ACOA article. However, I would ask that you take another look at it. The editor I have been in a dispute with made significant changes to the article just prior to your review. They made it seem like the article is about a particular organization, which it is not (you can check this in the history). Thank you. --Elplatt (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year
Ring out the old, and Ring in the new. Happy New Year! From FloNight
I think "great" has to be avoided in the lead. It is hardly neutral. Some mention that some people have wanted to call him the great might go in the article further down, maybe. Lots of people have called him unpleasant things too, shall we mention them in the lead? --Scott Mac (Doc)16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Knopfler
Happy Calendar Change! ;p
I'm not sure how to go about this - 86.132.250.113 appears to be David Knopflerwho suggests someone email him I'm inclined to believe, given the recent weeks activity on the related article. Anon states the image he removes need copyright permission which they state hasn't been given. I'm fine with the info that the anon changed/removed as none of the article is cited inline :) --Alfmelmac23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he doesn't. He states that it is "non authorised", by which I think he means that the photographer was not authorised to take the picture at the gig. However, if that's what he means, then tough, because copyright doesn't come into it. As the image is on commons, you might suggest he e-mails them, (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org) but I think they'll tell him to sod off.--Scott Mac (Doc)23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PM Award
I think it's a personal attack. Given Mandelson's reputation, it's a bit like giving somebody whose wife has recently died a "Crippen Award". I removed it and left a note on Private Musing's talk page. --TS10:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "involved admin" firewall is getting in the way here - but it occurs to me that your comment on WT:RFAR is a perfect test of the meatball:VestedContributor problem, since I'm not sure what other cover you get.
Because you know better - I know you know you know better - and one of us is going to do something about it, and it should be you. Lucky for us both, what I can do about it is constrained by ethics rules I take seriously.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different perspective. I think most of the problems around here are due to factionalism that has real underlying causes. There has always been a "vested contributor" effect, but now it's relatively weak compared to the severe wikipolitical factors that drive the struggle.
If anything, Giano is a counter-example for the vested contributor effect. Despite his personal popularity he has problems because many of his stances are out of favor, and he can barely sneeze without causing a fuss. Slim Virgin is another counter-example. The key to these people isn't so much that they're vested contributors--it's that they're strong personalities with well formed views, and that has led to their being perceived as vested contributors.
As the Wikipedia community evolves, the old social cohesion dissipates and bureaucacy takes its place. This is natural and unavoidable (unless we develop a software and social mechanism for community forking on a peer-to-peer basis, and I argue that we missed that bus back in 2004). Strong personalities become socially undesirable where before (except for a few misfits such as Lir and Wik) they had the power to shape the community in their image. The first major casualty of that phenomenon, as long ago as 2005, was Ed Poor. Kelly Martin followed soon after.
So the vested contributor "problem" is one that only appears to be a problem if you wonder why these powerful oldies are still clinging on by their fingernails. The only reason you even notice them is that they're being buffeted, on a daily basis, by serious political storms. If they don't adapt, they'll go under. Often you notice them when they fail to adapt, and instead try to change the system to suit them. Or else you notice them because of some factional dispute they've aligned themselves with. The ones who lacked the strong personality and vanity were winnowed out and the dinosaurs remain.
The real wikipolitical problems change over time but the underlying one is the conflict between the emerging bureaucracy and the community, which manifests itself regularly in factional revolts. Once upon a time the ochlocracy was how we did everything (with a few odd nudges from "constitutional monarch" Jimbo Wales), but that has given way more and more to bureaucracy. You'll see this all the time in the way people treat the arbitration committee as a form of government, and demand that they come up with solutions.
The bureaucracy sees its job as containing the factions and keeping them from one another's throat, but its mandate is under constant challenge. My view on this is that the situation is stable because the stronger factions all identify with the bureaucracy and will only compromise with the ochlocracy to the extent that this is necessary to maintain internal stability. The ochlocracy is thus perennially aligned with the minor faction of the day, which makes for some interesting (and hopefully productive) jostling. Everybody is kept on his toes. Perhaps "alliances" is a better name than "factions", because they're often quite shortlived.
It's not like the old days, but the only way to get back to the old days would be to make forks and still maintain content integrity, which at this stage is impossible. You'd need to build peer-to-peer in at an early stage and evolve a self-forking community around it. That might be interesting but it wouldn't look anything like any generation of Wikipedia we've ever seen. --TS00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've probably been here long enough to be nostalgic. I guess the recent arbcom decisions to elect more things should have warned me. I now see the way the wind is blowing. I should also have paid more attention to my sociology: Max was there first.--Scott Mac (Doc)00:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community is no longer coherent enough for pure ochlocracy to appear viable (even for those few of us who remember the time when it was the way) so the prevailing model of revolutionary change is the creation of a new, more efficient bureaucracy. As somebody said on-wiki on the same subject recently: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
There are things we probably need to do that have been stymied for years because the consensus model hasn't scaled well enough. As a trivial example, the rollback feature was unbundled from the sysop function in MediaWiki as early as mid-2005, but it took until January, 2008 for its implementation on a demand basis to be introduced--by which time client side tools had developed to fill the gap. And I've no idea when, if ever, we'll move to a trial of flagged revisions. There seems to be a kind of paralysis, with many people seemingly opposing suggestions for change out of a misplaced civic duty to maintain the status quo. I think this is their way of expressing unease, much in the way that the voters in the recent arbcom elections expressed unease by booting longtime arbitrators who were unwise enough to stand again.
I don't have those feelings, in fact I find them perverse, unexpected, and intensely frustrating. But I can observe them. There is a sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement that I don't feel myself, perhaps because things still seem to be going absolutely swimmingly and I'm becoming more and more in love with the product of our years of work. I don't feel it, but I observe it, with the kind of sympathy one might feel towards a wounded animal that one cannot reassure with reason and argument. A little bloodletting becomes necessary from time to time, and so it transpires. Annoying to lose good, competent people, but nothing to worry about in the greater scheme of things.
I'm really enthusiastic about the arbitration committee's ability to handle change. The fuss and muttering has missed a vital point: for arbcom, 2008 was more different from 2007 than 2007 was from 2004. The big, systemic problems are now being addressed as never before, and of course arbcom is getting a lot of pushback. Arbcom is being more innovative than ever before, and risk-taking has its costs. Would that the community showed so much capacity for change! --TS02:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Children of alcoholics
You may remember a couple of days ago removing some names as violating WP:BLP on the talkpage of Adult children of alcoholics. The same editor has added some names onto the new article - I am not convinced they are referenced - an unjaundiced eye would be appreciated. I have not edited the page other than the merge tag. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I noticed you were helping with POV on the lead for the Pope John Paul II article a couple of days ago, and I was wondering if you'd be able to help keep an eye on it for that. We're working on bringing the article back up to a GA condition, and a less-biased (than myself) opinion would be very helpful.
We're also hoping for help from the WikiProject Catholicism Collaboration, which, while not necessarily unbiased, might provide more information, refs, etc.
Well, it's essentially a title that's currently in very wide use, at least among Catholics. There are very people who will ask "who?" if you make reference to "JP the Great". So, I guess, in the article, it's a reflection of what happened after his death. Whether or not that qualifies as original research, I don't know ... I'll see if I can hunt down some refs. It also tallies with the fact that his cause for canonisation has been accelerated by five years. Can-Dutch (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as the into says, it isn't even clear it is a title. It's sourced enough, but it is suffering from undue weight and possibly synthesis of sourced. However, it isn't the only POV problem with the article.--Scott Mac (Doc)21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[6] I never imagined bad luck would come into play, but I told you we were smarter collectively than you were willing to give credit for. ;) rootology (C)(T) 23:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Scott. I declined those speedies you placed there, as redirects can't be divisive (and R2 does not apply on template: => User: redirects) and as T1 was merged to G10 but does not apply in the last case. I suggest you take them to TFD/MFD instead, because we have tons of pro-/contra-something userboxes and by your logic, they'd all be G10able, which is something I think there should rather be a broader discussion about. Regards SoWhy21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are wrong. We have dozens of userboxes in userspace. We have a longstanding convention not to have political userboxes in template space. I see no need to rehash that debate, and I suspect another admin will take a different view.--Scott Mac (Doc)23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying they should stay or go, I am saying that no criteria for speedy deletion applies to them and as such another venue for deletion has to be pursued. It is quite possible that another admin would just ignore that the criteria do not fit and just delete those redirects and the userbox but it's declined now so I'd suggest you just list them at RFD/TFD. As I said, I just judge whether CSD fits, not whether they should be deleted or not. Regards SoWhy23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bothered with form filling for a debate we've already had. Someone create a box against current policy, it takes them seconds, and I need to fill in three forms, get them countersigned, and wait 5 days? I can't be arsed. Let them stay. As to which or what CSD they meet, I've no idea. I never read these pages.--Scott Mac (Doc)23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Thompson
I think there must be an email or *something* going around, everyone seems to keen to get the same bit in - that he visited the middle east - but it's always the same slant - his wife is Israeli (she's not), she went with him (she didn't), he meet Sharon (leaving out the fact that he visited the leader of the PLO at the same time) and so on. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering if you would comment on this proposal for a test of flagged revisions. It was raised on the Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection page as an attempt to address some of the problems raised by those who opposed flagged protection. (while trying to retain some of those who supported that) It includes BLPs, specifically the ones you raised as the major concern, and has a manually granted usergroup for flagging instead of just autoconfirmed users. It is only a very rough draft and the full protection part could be set up after the more important first two parts (as it would need bugzilla:17157 in order to be different to the BLP version) however I think it is a possible basis to work from. Your thoughts on the talk page would be great. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my suggested FlaggedRev implementation?
Blatant vandalism from an experienced editor? ([7])
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:Jimbo Wales/In many languages..., are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. -Seidenstud (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OH for goodness sake this is humourless idiocy. Please look at the context, and you will see that that was not vandalism. You know where you can stick your template.--Scott Mac (Doc)00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to move this into project space shortly - it combines (hopefully) the good points of Flagged protection with a supplementary system for handling BLPs. I'd especially like your help (if you have time) answering FAQ #1 on the talk page (thought I'd preempt the obvious questions) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help out. Unfortunatly, I now rather hope wikipedia gets all the press attacks it deserves. It may be the only way to kick this amoral community into doing something.--Scott Mac (Doc)22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record
I won't wheel war over open/closing RfA's, that is where one of WP's core principles in my opinion comes into play---(with few exceptions) anybody is free to change/revert the actions of another person---whether it is a user/admin/crat etc. That being said, adding supports to an RfA after it was closed, is something I would have reverted again.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If I want to indicate my support of a candidate, what is that to you? It isn't an election, it is supposed to be a discussion. Edit warring to prevent me from commenting would have been pointless and rude.--Scott Mac (Doc)00:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because closed RfA's are closed and don't get additional !votes support or oppose, but reverting the NOTNOW closure is an action that I support. I believe that we are free to reverse just about any action another person takes. So reverting the NOTNOW is 100%acceptable (although I believe it is a mistake) !voting in a closed RfA is a different story.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IT is standard practice that once an RfA is over not to allow any more !votes either in support or oppose. Pretty simple. Once a discussion is archived, it is archived, I would have thought you have been around long enough to know that... that being said, reopening the discussion, then adding a comment is a different action, one that I can support.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not giving a reason, you are merely quoting process. A comment is a comment, and if people are commenting, then it is evident that the discussion is not over. If you were troubled by the incongruity of continuing discussion and your close template, then you should have removed your template and not my comment. By calling my comment a "!vote" you are trying, I suspect, to imply that this is an election and late votes are inadmissable. But it is not an election, and in any case it is crats that call elections not you. Please don't remove my comments again on the grounds of your template.--Scott Mac (Doc)16:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what I wrote. I have no idea what your motives are. I simply warned that there was a danger that your actions might be perceived that way.--Scott Mac (Doc)23:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:Jimbo Wales/In many languages..., are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. -Seidenstud (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make statements inferring that I am trolling, as you did on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buckingham Palace.[8] Such statements can be considered personal attacks. Please desist inferring that I am a troll. Please respect my contributions to Wikipedia and a member in good standing in the community. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)