User talk:Scott MacDonald

See my archives here.

Please don't use talk-back here, I watch when I post if I'm interested in your reply.
No spam please. I take it for granted you're grateful for my RFA vote, and you wish me a happy holiday. If you don't - then screw you too!

Phil Woolas not convicted of any crime

For what it's worth, you're quite right to remove the category and I'm kicking myself for not spotting it and removing it earlier. In case it gets re-added and someone wants to check here, I should explain that this is a rather interesting area of the law. Section 106 of the RPA 1983 creates a criminal offence but proving it (to a criminal standard) on an election petition does not mean that the person is "convicted": the technical term is "reported guilty" not "found guilty". Election Courts operate a more relaxed, inquisitorial form of jurisprudence and the ordinary criminal defences are not available there, so a finding by an Election Court is not binding on a criminal court. By contrast with Phil Woolas, Miranda Grell did not face an election petition, but was convicted in a criminal court. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It might be worth you posting this information on the talk page of the article.--Scott Mac 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scott

Larry Sanger is quite irate about Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. You do really good BLP work and thought you would be a good level head there. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:General alcazar.jpg

FYI, I have moved your nomination of File:General alcazar.jpg from PUI to WP:FFD. PUI is for images where the uploader claims that they are public domain or licensed under an acceptable license (GFDL, Creative Commons, etc), but where that claim is being challenged. FFD is for other deletion discussions. --B (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not pretend to understand that, but thanks. I get lost in the alphabet soup.--Scott Mac 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP AfD that may interest you

Florentin Smarandache. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Wallace

- Ching Chong

Hi, as I think you were involved in the deletion of the BLP I wanted to ask you, this content got added here, its at least not a Bio, as a basically private one event person is it acceptable there? Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Heynis

- Casey Heynis

Thoughts? This is getting beyond a joke, is this the sort of person that we should be hosting articles about forever? Rebecca Black (deletion overturned and recreation allowed) has now a BLP and a article about her single, I am tempted to AFD this one but when the fans come and support it makes the article even harder to get rid of it , thoughts? Professors, artists and political candidates that fail to be elected are deleted but such as this kid get swarmed on... Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Unacceptable.--Scott Mac 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated thanks. Policy and guidelines need tightening and publicizing so that people don't even get the idea to create such biographies here, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/facepalm. I know we don't agree on a lot when it comes to handling BLPs, but man, that is definitely a case where deletion is warranted. Reso lute 23:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated thanks. I suspected, in this particular case, I'd not have too much problems defending an IAR deletion if someone even bothers DRVing it. There are just sometimes one needs to say "this is wrong".--Scott Mac 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Scott. I'm encouraged slightly by the fact that no one has tried to recreate Alexandra Wallace (student), perhaps Wikipedia is getting better with handling things like this? Off2riorob, it might be best to AFD the Black article in two months or so, after the current hubbub dies down. Who knows, maybe "The Community" will be opening to changing its mind. NW (Talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd not go to afd with the Black article. Propose a merger to the song and get a regular consensus, probably via an RFC.--Scott Mac 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes I also see a merge on the horizon there, good to know (as I suspected) that we're basically all on the same broad wavelength, even if we all differ on more minor issues and how to implement and action them, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your arguments to delete the Casey Heynes article. Since Wikipedia previously dedicated a long article to internet celebrity Gary Brolsma(aka Numa Numa Boy) I`d probably had a wrong understanding about the rules and how a person can be considerated notable. The Casey Heynis viral video reached more than one million views at YouTube, even when the videos where successively deleted by YouTube admin. His Facebook profile grows from one (I said one) to 230,000 friends one one single week. The case was noticed by ABC, CBS, NYT, TheSun, MSNBC, CNN, massively around the world. Australian television interviewed both parts (naming and showing the kids involved), Channel 7 and 9. Here in Brazil, the main broadcasting television will dedicate a special program nest Sunday. The Wikipedia article was a preliminary work, like so many others, since Wikipedia is a colaborative enviroment, not property of iluminated people. As I`d said before, maybe the Numa Numa Boy derserves more space than an anti-bulying icon like Casey Heynis. Celloweb 02:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Gary Brolsma was 18 at the time of his "notability" and is 24 today. That is he's not a minor. He's not a victim not an offender - and he's invited publicity over a sustained period. That's very different from this case.--Scott Mac 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. In order to help me in my Wikipedia's education, please inform the policies links where the restriction for articles with minors, victim and offender were stated. Thanks. Celloweb 18:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celloweb (talk • contribs)

By the way, the article about the Murder of James Bulger must be deleted too, may I shall request it? Celloweb 18:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celloweb (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It isn't a set of hard and fast rules. The Bulger case is obviously a very different thing with long-term noteworthiness compared to some school bullying posted on youtube last week. That should be self-evident.--Scott Mac 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember AfD Authentic Gospel of Matthew?

Hi, Sorry to bring up the past, (I wasn't here, you were), but the issue seems to still be present. I see your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Authentic_Matthew Delete] here from 2005, also see the comments of Professor Peter of the University of Destiny here, am now fairly sure that something strange has got into a whole series of Wikipedia articles relating to mainstream subjects such as Gospel of Matthew canonical gospels Gospels (except that I've deleted the material there). If you have a taste for it (and I cannot imagine why anyone would) then please feel invited to look at these pages. If you don't want to touch it with a bargepole I completely sympathise.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is on Talk:Gospel of Matthew. Though the above involves User:Poorman and that particular baton seems to have passed to User:Ret.Prof. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Royal engagement official.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Royal engagement official.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

To expand on the template above, I took a look at the license linked here, and the restrictions against use for certain purposes, plus the requirements for no derivatives, does not make it free enough to count as a free content license. Additionally, this picture does not meet WP:NFCC criterion 1, since we already have many pictures of Prince William and Kate Middleton and besides that it is generally assumed that we can get a free picture of living people, as well as criterion 8, as the picture does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." While the picture is described in the article text, the full description as of this revision was "On 12 December 2010, Buckingham Palace issued the official engagement photographs; these were taken on 25 November, in the state apartments at St. James's Palace, by photographer Mario Testino." We don't absolutely need a picture to illustrate this; the sentence can stand alone.

If you dispute my reasoning above please feel free to contact me at my talk page and we can discuss. –Grondemar 14:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, please don't remove templates which explicitly state "without removing this tag" (emphasis original). I agree that this needs further discussion, so I'm not replacing the deletion tag, but please be more restrained in the future. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly unapologetic for that. As I indicated, I was editing from an ipod, and couldn't manipulate templates. The choice was to remove the template or allow an unfortunate deletion.--Scott Mac 12:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Royal engagement official.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Royal engagement official.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ark in Heaven

Thanks, Scott, for your contribution and repair-work, and I hope it remains just as it is. Well done! Hoo-RAH! oh-yeah! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article and found that the guardian(s) of the Ark of the Covenant decided that you were guilty of Original Research, put that opinion in an edit summary, and got rid of your edit. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]