User talk:Cameron Scott

Jean-Claude Van Damme

I understand your concerns regarding Van Damme's fight career, but I believe there is legit information in some of those references. Patrick Teugels interview includes a newspaper report of Teugels fights at the 1979 WAKO Championships & shows a number of photos which includes his matches with Jean-Claude Van Damme. This is not just a blog, it's an interview with a fighter who fought Van Damme & was a team mate of his. Anyhow, if you're interested, I've been researching Van Damme's fight career for months now & trust me, it's extremely difficult, if almost impossible to find info on him, because remember, he was never a famous fighter. I just think to just delete everything is not right. But, I'm done with his page anyhow. Too many hassels here. Peace out. 23:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)DavidToma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidToma (talk • contribs)

Your question on village pump

Keep in mind that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." See User:Eusebeus/School Notability, and especially Wikipedia:Inherent notability, which goes into much more depth, and is as authoritative as the WP:NOTINHERITED essay. Ikip (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Johnson

Thanks for helping with this article. I've been having some real problems with people repeatedly deleting the fact she was on an all women shortlist. Funnily enough they had a Cambridge IP address which is where Johnson currently lives. --Shakehandsman (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to add incorrect information, even if it is sourced. It has been removed because it is incorrect and not for any other reason. Thank you!ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Johnson and her partner split up and ARFCRFarfcrf is Johnson herself?? In any case, this person is behaving irrationally and steering towards a temporal block at a minimum... --Crusio (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of e107

In your reasoning of deleting e107 (software) you mentioned: Delete - fails notability on software - as far as I can determine the "award" is given by the same company that publishes books about the subject.. seems to be a sham.

Well.. that same company (Pakt) publishes books and gives awards to e.g. Joomla, Mambo, Wordpress and Drupal. So I do hope those Wikipedia pages are considered to be deleted as well? Best regards. nlstart, admin of e107. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.135.163 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really badly reasoned, nlstart. It's one thing to claim that an award does not prove significance, and another to claim that it actually disproves significance. —SlamDiego_←T 09:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so you are also one of those software deletionists! after E107, now applying notability tag to dyne:bolic - top 10 open source projects in 2005 ... together with wikipedia http://slashdot.org/articles/06/01/09/1131258.shtml i just wonder.. what's wrong with you guys? are you familiar enough with GNU/Linux to do what you are doing? jaromil (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

After “Journal of Alternative Pespectives in the Social Sciences” was deleted (as per your suggestion) on 1 Nov, VonFeigenblatt created “The Journal of Alternative perspectives in the Social Sciences” on 15 Nov. (This was moved to “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences”.) I discovered it on or about 8 February, and tagged it for speedy deletion as an improper recreation. It was deleted soon thereafter.

Anyway, VonFeigenblatt seems intent on trying to kite the reputation of the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, using Wikipedia. Since he can play with sockpuppets and with the definite article and capitalization, I think that a periodic use of the “Search” button should be made to catch his attempts. —SlamDiego_←T 06:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. At the time that you made the nomination, I downloaded and read one of the papers by one of the authors. I would have considered it at best marginal as high school work. —SlamDiego_←T 10:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got to this one before me. I certainly agree. DGG (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FF

Hey there,

Emperor pointed me in your direction regarding getting Fantastic Four up to GA. He figured you'd be worth talking to about any academic material which may be available, and mentioned that the "MA thesis is the one that could pay off digging out and might repay the effort (or it could be pretty thin stuff)". We certainly need to build this section, and Emperor tossed some useful links on the article talk page. And, while the article does have plenty of sources as a whole, some are thinner than others. So, any help you can give at any point would be appreciated. :) BOZ (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - there's no rush at all. Friday would be fine. I may not even nominate it this week, and when I do there should be at least a few days before the review begins. After being met with success on Spider-Man, I have no intention of stopping now, so I'm going to do my best to keep the momentum up. Speaking of which, if you can help at all with that article as a second priority, I'm sure we'd like to get it up to FA sooner or later! It can use most of the same sorts of things the FF article needs, although it's closer to wher it should be in many ways. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YourStory.in entry

Thank you Cameron. I have posted my rejected entry in the sandbox for you to look over. Let me know what you think is needed and can be added. Thanks again. --D'artagnan7 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Stansted Expansion

Hi. I've replied to your comment on its talk page. However, you did remove some things which should have been kept. I will no add them back yet, I'll wait for your proposal on the talk page. Thanks, Yotcmdr (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Cameron. I just stopped by to mention that perhaps this was a little bold. While I agree with you 100%, and considered doing it to more than one thread on the help desk today - I was also a little concerned that had the wrong person noticed, it could result in a rather ... ahhh... un-polite warning or something. I suppose it's all around the stem-cell ban being lifted, but boy did it sure polarize things huh? I wish they'd keep it all at the Obama talk page (or an AN board), but it seems to be everywhere today. I'll admit, I'm tempted to follow your lead and just start deleting Obama threads on sight at the Help Desk, but I suspect that someone may take exception to that. Oh well, nothing really more to add but ... Have a good day/evening. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know its rubbish...

... but I think I'd pay to read it [1] ;) (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

bnp

I can't help but wonder about your opinion on the BNP article. In what way did your latest edits improve the article even the slightest bit? I've logged on as an anon. and been treated like total crap just because of it. Anon comes on here, says "cut out a sentence" - an articulate, explanatory sentence - and bam, its done. WTF? I responded on that talk page. Should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are only busy tonight and not signing on?--Npovshark (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cameron, I responded again. What issues do you see with the proposal?--Npovshark (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Really, this article seems to be going down. Was this really helpful or needed? The very short article already had four clean-up tags but another plus citation tags on nearly every sentence? That just feels real wp:bitey amongst others things. I wish you'd consider rolling back to just a couple major issues instead. -- Banjeboi 13:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:The Burning of the Valleys

Apparently, it's the same thing as this, to which I've redirected it to. :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, let me rephrase that; the link actually related to that because they both referred to a raid conducted by the Amercias. However, I missed the fact that the book referred to the "Union" as "America"...and thus the misunderstanding that it was a correct article. :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so you know, I was one of the original people whom opted for the user's block and his articles deleted on the IRC; the one source that I found seemed reasonable, so that's why I hesitated for an immediate delete. :) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punisher

Welcome to wikpedia. It may not have been your intention, but you deleted the text on the Nicky Cavella article and redirected it to the Punisher page. Please do not do this again as there is nothing wrong with the article and therefore it should stay. If you are unsatisfied with the article you can always edirt it, but please do not delete ot. Thanks. The Editor 155 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for Everson

I have opened an RFC for Michael Everson at Talk:Michael_Everson#Michael_Everson_COI.2Fownership_RFC. I would like to get more editors in on this if possible. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramage

See what I said at the AfD, enough to support it in the article, I think; published this month.John Z (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Purser-Hallard

Cameron, I've just posted this to the talk page on the Talk:Philip Purser-Hallard page:

In the couple of months since User: Cameron Scott put these tags on the article, nobody else has made any comment. I've left it a while to see whether anyone would respond, but given the unstated implication of the tags (that I'm running the page as a vanity project, essentially), I'd like to see the issue cleared up.

Today I've gone through the article providing references for those elements which appeared to need them (I'm assuming that the list of books and the weblinks stand as their own citations). The "Conflict of Interest" tag is clearly more problematic, as it's clearly true that the page has been largely updated and maintained by me. (It's obvious, incidentally, that this goes on a great deal on Wikipedia -- see Special:Contributions/Afaras and Mary Ann Sieghart for a random example -- but perhaps I'm unusual in being open about it.) The crux here seems to be the words "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."

Now, while I'm obviously not the best judge, I've certainly done my best when updating this page to stick to objective fact rather than, for instance, puffing my books. Certainly so far nobody's popped up on the talk page and mentioned anything which specifically requires cleanup or violates NPOV. The main arguable point would perhaps be whether the quantity of the resulting material is disproportionate to my notability, but comparison with the articles for some approximate peers (see, for instance, Dale Smith (writer), Mags L Halliday and Nick Wallace, all of whom have contributed to the same fiction ranges as me and none of whom has done anything massively more notable) would suggest that it's about average.

Given all this... unless somebody points out further material that requires citations, identifies something that violates NPOV or otherwise objects, I'm proposing to remove both these tags in three weeks' time. I'll mention to the original tagger, User: Cameron Scott, that I'm doing this so that he has the opportunity to object.

Does this seem fair?

Phil PH (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you pre-empted me. Glad that's all sorted. Phil PH (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Asset Protection insurance

Dear Cameron; I am upset that you decided to pull the page but I must admit that I did sign my name and that was incorrect and I am guilty of stupidity. As well the site could have been editorialized better and to that end I tried to help and corrected what I could and thought that progress had been made. All in all I wanted to help you understand why this page is significant and why it should be reinstated. I am a former regulator with the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange (as it was referred to back then. I am also extremely familiar with the trust and foundation area from an international legal and tax vantage. My main concern is I am not sure that Wikipedia staff actually understands why this page is so important. In the offshore world not all jurisdictions and all professionals adhere to a perceived immoral and unethical precept of hiding money or evading taxes. Asset protection insurance grew out of the need to supply protection of assets and has nothing to do with saving taxes. Its 100% transparent and the policy is invalid if tax liability (or any non disclosed liability exists). The product just supplies asset protection and may in fact increase current tax burdens. As a result the trust and foundation industry is loathsome to admit or even look at these products because the single factor that drives their vocation is tax relief and secrecy (which is a myth in OECD compliant countries). Most clients say they want asset protection, but what they really want is that factor and to pay little or zero taxes on their money. Asset protection insurance quite simply protects assets and replaces them if successfully encroached. The product removes the sleaze factor and it is really relevant in that it only works because its transparent. The issue is important the parameters are as current as the recent G20 meetings and the OECD release on blacklisted jurisdiction just last week. I would ask for a chance to have the site reinstated please instruct me how to go about doing that. Their is pith and substance to the product and many more insurers are applying the product to business applications such as a Key man asset protection insurance and in regard to intellectual property. This is a new and different category and very newsworthy, please don't punish the need for information based on my mistake and a perceived bias. Please allow me to fix the problem.--Jlwiki2008 (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The BLP Barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		Skaehandsman has awarded you the BLp Barnstar for your constant efforts on maintaining neutrality on the article Melanie Johnson and dealing with so much vandalism (go easy on the swearing though) Shakehandsman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: JAPSS

VonFeigenblatt again re-created “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences”. Before I came on-line, it was speedily deleted. I have requested salting of “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” and of “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences”. —SlamDiego_←T 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

batshit crazy

consider this the first post in an oncoming salvo of comments by the batshit crazy I/P editors on your talk page. if i wasnt crazy why would i have laughed until i cried when i read that. peace, Nableezy (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevil (Marvel Comics)

Hi - I'm A. I've looked over the Daredevil (Marvel Comics) article, and I noticed (with all it's ph) that it could potentially become a good article. I've been using the Spider-Man article as my model, seeing as its recently become a good article. I've proposed the article split the ph to a ph and fictional bio. section, but a fellow user at the WikiProject Comics suggested I speak to you about how the article had previously undergone several splitting attempts in the past. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this matter. Thanks in advance, -- A ^talk/_contribs 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to reply for a while. Thank you (very much) for your response to me and the discussion page - it was very helpful. :) -- A ^talk/_contribs 12:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! That actually stunned me. I'm saving the cleaning of the publication history for last, seeing as it will require a lot of work. Thanks a million. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Strange: The Oath

No article, just a redirect. Feel free to start a stub, though. :) 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hi, in this diff, did you refer to "you" as me? I hope not, because I just made the subsection to clarify about "what community thinks about the accusation" after Piotrus replied to me--Caspian blue 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Caspian blue 23:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

Hi Cameron, did you take a look at the talk discussion for the Europe article? You said that the version of the surtitle on the page Europe is not NPOV, yet the point is the map is only one of two most common distinctions - and distinctions not of just the geographical borders, but of "Europe" - what authorities are calling Europe. This is mentioned on the talk page. Do you have an opinion? I asked for a third party opinion, but I don't think I have had a real third party opinion yet. In any case, I fail to see why you think the version you changed is not NPOV (per your edit summary). To say the white represents one view of Europe and its borders is not NPOV - it is the truth. To say it is Europe, thereby ignoring what other common sources say, is POV and UNDUE. In one camp we have Nat. Geo. and Encyclopedia Britannica, in the other we have World Book Encyclopedia and the CIA. --Npovshark (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem: [2]

Here are some of the sources which go against the current version, where the surtitle of the map says "map of Europe" (and most common boundaries):

World Book - these regions are not included in Europe: [3]
CIA - these regions are not included in Europe: - [4]
Europe.org - these regions are not included in Europe: [5]
Asia's own opinion: [6]
Central Asia and Caucasus Institute - you can't "integrate" into something you are already a part of: [7]