User talk:Scott MacDonald

See my archives here.

Oreste Scalzone

I could work on that. Would you mind userfying it? Thanks! --Cyclopia ^talk 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I find google cashe useful in such situations cashe here - Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 11

January 2011 (UTC)

Done User:Cyclopia/Oreste Scalzone. The trust is that it will not be left in userspace without references for long, but I think that probably goes without saying.--Scott Mac 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thank you. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some wiki news and italian wiki article for inspiration. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the article was simply it was unreferenced and negative - you've nothing to prove to me.--Scott Mac 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(If you're talking to me and not to Off2riorob) I know I've nothing to prove to you. I just wanted to defuse and collaborate with what I see as a worthwile effort in this case. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article now referenced; could you check? --Cyclopia ^talk 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, but you don't need my authority to move it back. My concern was unreferenced negative and you've remedied that.--Scott Mac 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your sensitivity to BLP issues and especially reversal of your BLP-driven admin action, I just wanted to be sure. Thanks. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consideration.--Scott Mac 15:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you've deleted Franco Piperno as well (expected that): same thing, please? Thanks. Also, just since we're here: what if I directly move a page like that in my mainspace, in the future, to work on (fast)? Is it proper? --Cyclopia ^talk 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material negative should not be in userspace at all - I'm actually fairly liberal in undeleting and userfying if the person requesting is clued enough, and will act without delay, however a lot of admins will refuse and simply offer to e-mail you the content, so that you can replace it with references. The best thing to do with an article like that is either a) immediately source it or b) immediately copy the content into an off-wiki place (word processor) and then mark the article {{db-attack}} for immediate deletion. Then, at your leisure, you can recreate the article (inserting only sourced material). It would be rather good (and I mean this genuinely) if even inclusionists like you were able to help with the enforcement of the immediate removal of unsourced negative material once spotted, which can be later replaced (it shouldn't need a BLP warrior like me to see that this is a sensible act, and clearly policy). Oh, there is one other option for a non-admin: c) stub the thing down to the non-negative bit, even if that means the article reads "John Smith is a Italian politician" or even "is a person". Basically anything is temporarily better than leaving an unsourced negative bio.--Scott Mac 20:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyclopia/Franco Piperno--Scott Mac 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thanks. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"since when did essays need references"

See WP:Activist where some editors have repeatedly added "citation needed" and other odd edits. See also that essay's talk page. I noted your edit summary "since when did essays need references" and deemed it an interesting issue. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the essay. If the essay is basically nothing more that "someone's opinion" then it doesn't need citations. If you don't agree with it, simply write on the talk page "I think is bullshit and full of factual errors". Fine. If the essay is a collaborative work (and it looks like that is) then the people collaborating may have different views on some factual points. Then is is quite reasonable for an editor to say "what's the evidence for this claim?" and one way of answering that would be to cite the evidence. Perhaps "citation needed" isn't quite the right tag "disputed" might be or "challenged assertion". Citations are not requited for opinion pieces - but they may be a good way of convincing people of the accuracy of something. --Scott Mac 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um did you look at the edits? The "collaboration" on the article and talk page is not "collaboration" in any sense of the word I can find :). BTW, the opponents to the essay already had an AfD on it. When it looked like it was being made neutral, then the pushers jumped in calling it "poop." And adding as much "poop" as possible :). Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've honestly not been following it.--Scott Mac 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] very latest edit. Enjoy. May need a large schmear to make such edits palatable. Collect (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and heavens, it's the Climate Change shitstorm-by-proxy again. Well, at least they're off fighting over a mere essay, which I can safely ignore. Whatever keeps them away from actual articles is fine by me.--Scott Mac 16:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to have those involved who are already banned from the topic blocked for a fairly blatant continuation of their battleground editing. There's some merit to your proposal to let them squabble over a mere essay, though. --TS 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI thread

Scott, a month or two ago, I believe you started a thread on ANI (or maybe AN) relating to overly aggressive responses to editors with corporate or institutional usernames. I would like to refer someone to that thread, but can't seem to quickly find it. Do you happen to know where it is archived? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the thread [2]?--Scott Mac 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE Thread

Hello Scott this is a courtesy notification of an WP:AE request that has mentioned an Administrative action you preformed recently. THe Enforcement request is not about the action you preformed but it is one that has bearing on the current thread. The Thread is WP:AE#AndroidCat. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, in that filing I see that you blocked an editor for violating the ArbCom's Scientology remedies. Now that you're an involved editor in the Scientology topic I suggest you should not be using your admin tools against other editors working in that topic any longer. Will Beback talk 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to your cause for concern here. I seldom enforce arbcom remedies at all - and am unlikely to start doing much of that in the future. I was drawn to that one more by the BLP issues than thoughts of Scientology, which isn't a subject I have strong options about at all. I will naturally not use admin tolls if previous conflicts with an editor, or a content interest in any particular article, might impede my judgement. However, I don't predict any problems here.--Scott Mac 09:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that you are now an involved admin on the Scientology topic. You clearly have a strong interest in the topic, having created Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology and nominated or directly deleted numerous articles related to Scientology. Like other involved admins, if you see a problem that needs an administrative response then the best option is to ask for other admins to do it rather than doing so yourself. The Scientology ArbCom case specifically prohibits involved admins from enforcing its remedies, which is why I posted this reminder. Will Beback talk 09:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are stretching the definition of involved, but whatever. This is a wholly pointless discussion, since I don't generally enforce such things at all. As ever, if any uninvolved admin has concerns about any of my admin activities I will reconsider and back off as necessary. I see no point in debating hypotheticals. --Scott Mac 10:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did enforce the remedy,[3] not just hypothetically. If you see something like that again just ask another admin or go to AE. No big deal. Will Beback talk 10:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said, that's one very occasional time I've enforced something on AE. As I've no intention of enforcing anything else, and, in any case, do not feel any conflict of interests, your advisory lecture is probably not superfluous. However, thank you for your kind concern that made you just want to pop here and give me some hypothetical advice out of the goodness of your loving heart.--Scott Mac 16:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Given the number of comments I have received on my talk page I think most people can find it easily enough. However I've changed it back. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure most regular wikipedians will find it fine. Its the new user who gets your admin message. Thanks/--Scott Mac 08:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Johnson

Hmm. There's a difference between us idly speculating and reporting on the notable response of Westminster... and mainstream media. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When someone resigns for "personal reason" the fact that his colleges are speculating about it isn't notable.--Scott Mac 12:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the diff. The quote you cut covered more than his colleagues' speculation. It covered the shock, and the reaction that it wasn't due to his performance. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some talkpage discussion would be better, amongst a few editors, those additions you made were also extremely close to cut and copy pastes, its always better to re write the content...also you seem to have wrongly attributed a comment, it was not Nick Robinson that said this but Ed Miliband..Nick Robinson "said ..... "and stressed he had not been "pushed out" because of his handling of the shadow chancellorship." Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been offline and appalled I may have misattributed a quote. Yes, talkpage discussion would have been better - in addition to a simple revert. Reverting properly attributed and policy-adherent text does feel rather heavy-handed. There's no such thing as "extremely close" to cut and copy pasting. Either material breaches our rules on plagiarism, or it doesn't. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I meant that I saw nothing wrong with Scott's removal of your cited content as a bold revert discuss option - just having a citation isn't a gold badge for guaranteed insertion, if its removed then the place to go is the article talkpage to see if amongst contributors there is support for your desired addition, I also removed your other addition as trivia although I did replace it I wasn't very keen on it, there is too much of such short term trivia added to articles imo. As regards the plagiarism comment I only had a quick look , but imo it is better to steer away from close copied text. The plagiarism issue I was thinking about would have been in this edit, WP:FORMSOFPLAGARISM - Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text... the source in this case would have been imo the BBC, who you did not attribute .. and although you added quote marks as the material was copyrighted it imo needed WP:in-text attribution. - Clearly its a minor issue and if my thoughts are wrong please let me know. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting one... yes, the quote marks isn't really addressed by that, but there's no harm inserting the BBC's name into the text. I'll fix it if it ain't done already. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it, as I was looking I realized I had replaced it after removing it as trivia and that I was then responsible for the content, no worries, minor issues all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the detail of his atheism. I understand the point about Infoboxes not introducing facts, but it has become standard practice to do that with religion and taking it out of the one on Johnson would mean taking it out of thousands upon thousands of articles.--94.173.208.118 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]