Jump to content

User talk:Scalhotrod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is proudly American of Croatian and German descent... :)
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user had access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Md gilbert (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 15 January 2015 (→‎WikiProject Research Invitation: Responding to User:Scalhotrod). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Scalhotrod User talk:Scalhotrod Special:Contributions/Scalhotrod Special:Emailuser/Scalhotrod User:Scalhotrod/Articles User:Scalhotrod/WikiProjects User:Scalhotrod/Wikipedia Bookmarks User:Scalhotrod/UserSandbox
User Talk Contributions eMail Articles WikiProjects Bookmarks My Sandbox


  • "When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"
  • "Here on Wikipedia, it's OK to be an idiot or do something stupid as long as you are willing to take responsibility and own up to it when you are called on it." - Source Unknown


Do you have sources at hand about William Shockley?

I saw some recent edits to William Shockley under your user name, apparently part of a GOCE cleanup. What I have found when I have done GOCE cleanups is that if an article has a lot of messy language, but relies heavily on specific sources, it's nearly impossible to clean up the language without looking at the sources. Do you have the cited sources at hand now? (I do.) I reverted the edits per WP:BRD and invited discussion on the article talk page. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, I'm not sure I understand the basis for your concern. I was simply cleaning up bad grammar and overly wordy phrasing. I also changed a few adjectives and adverbs to reduce what I considered the level of hyperbole a bit, but nothing that changed the context of the content. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should I take that to be a statement that you had none of the three key books about Shockley at hand as you began editing the page? The page has a talk page notice that mentions it is subject to discretionary sanctions from a 2010 ArbCom case, stressing the importance of good sources, and all the sources are mentioned on the article talk page too. I have all of those sources and other sources on Shockley at hand, which is what I had in mind as I reverted per WP:BRD. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should take it to mean what I am stating. Nothing of what I edited was substantive, I saw the warning and stayed within the recommendations. If the content is incorrect, it stayed incorrect, albeit with better grammar and syntax. If you are in possession of "all of those sources and other sources on Shockley", then please "fix" the article. I'm happy to revisit it again to make the same kind of checks and edits I have already. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Branning

Hi

Can I please ask why you accepted this edit to Tanya Branning? The whole reason that the page is on pending changes protection is because IPs keep adding that she is returning, however no source is provided and Google does not support that she is returning. If you look in the page history, you will see that the same IP made a similar edit yesterday which was correctly reverted and the IP's talk page and contributions suggest that they have a history of making these types of unsubstantiated edits.

Please be more careful in the future and if you're unsure, leave the pending revision for another editor to look over--5 albert square (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 albert square - Ah, you are correct and my apologies for adding to the mess. I should have disapproved it for being Unsourced per WP:CRYSTAL. Thank you for correcting it. By the way, you should check the contributions for that IP, they are making changes across several articles. That edit was nearly identical to another Pending change that came up. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to reply to this earlier. Yes, thanks, I've undone the edit that was done to Grant Mitchell. I think the rumours about Tanya are stemming from people thinking that she killed Lucy Beale, therefore they think she is returning for the 30th anniversary. Now whilst I think there's more chances of pigs flying than there is of her having killed Lucy, it may be that she does still return for the anniversary as Lauren is leaving because Jacqueline Jossa is pregnant. So the article is on pending changes protection until 25th January, I would expect if she was going to return for the anniversary that Dominic Treadwell-Collins would announce something before then :)--5 albert square (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

Hello, Scalhotrod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Concerning this RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessments

Hi. In response to your edit I started a thread on the project talk page. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Importance_rankings. Your input would be helpful. Rezin (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone!

Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Taryn Thomas
added links pointing to Italian, Bloomfield, Maxim and Sicilian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania

Hi Scalhotrod,

I can't help but notice that you've reverted Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania to the "last stable version before WP:EDITWAR and content disputes".

That is, the version as of 01:44 on May 31 - some five months before Meldar667's edits, and six before mine.

So... what happens next?

Regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After ALPCA's last edit, I was considering another AN at the 3RR board, but decided that it was unnecessary exacerbation. After my reversion, I intended to notify the other editors who had made edits since with the intention of inspiring collaboration to correct the article, but I was distracted by WP:IRL things and signed off my computer for the evening. What are your thoughts on the situation? It appears that ALPCA still has not communicated or shared their thoughts on the matter. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact, ALPCA has just gone and undone your edit.
Which means, of course, that he's restored the edits that me and Meldar667 made - the very same edits he disagreed with and kept undoing...
Is it possible that he's suddenly realized the errors of his ways, and has decided to atone for them? 'Cause he's also left his talk page alone, having previously blanked it after taking the things posted on it by you, Shirt58 and Weegeerunner to be threats rather than advice...
Regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we need Admin intervention at this point, but as for a Noticeboard such as 3RR, I am unsure as to how to present this. ALPCA seems to generally be disruptive towards several editors as well as non-communicative after multiple attempts. I'll ping an Admin and see if they are willing to take a look. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that ALPCA has just been blocked indefinitely.
I actually think that's a bit harsh - but que sera sera.
Regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the Admin I pinged doesn't beat around the bush. Go forth and edit positively and productively! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deepak Chopra edit

Can I please request that you comment on the talk page why you feel that mentioning how many books the author has published and how many are on the New York Times Best Sellers list is UNDUE... while cherry-picked criticisms of just a few specific ideas which the author has put out is not UNDUE? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.194.250 (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I did some editing of my own. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary shooting

In light of your edit summary regarding these 'See also' links, I looked through the talk page archives for postings regarding including/not-including Bath School disaster but didn't find any clear consensus. Would welcome further discussion about it here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several different historical events discussed for the See also section, but the conversation still came back to the fact that the links provided include all of the previous events and preclude the need for any debate as to which one(s) is/are worthy of particular mention. In short, no one could agree which singular events should be listed so we included all of them using the list articles. My personal viewpoint is that no comparisons need to be made, all are horrific events, and as such the lists allow for readers to investigate other incidents and then draw their own conclusions. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when I realized that Bath School disaster had been deleted by name from the article but having the List articles in 'See also', instead of turning the section into a Wikilinkfarm, makes sense. I must have missed those discussion threads when I looked through the talk page archives. Shearonink (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That whole discussion was such a mess, its easy to miss. So many threads and intersections of comments and issues. It was in the Lead for quite some time, but I think that it was removed simply because it happened so long ago and the comparison became contrived. Quick frankly, some of the "body count" discussions that have taken place in various Talk pages just outright disgust me, but I guess guidelines need to be established somehow. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Descent

Please do not remove my content in a simple talk page. As for your descent, you are the one who started it. Who needed to know that?!?! 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because of the potential threat you made in light of your WP:EDITWARring. Please do not re-add it or I will report it on the Administrators Noticeboard. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And please do not remove my content from a simple talk page. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked nicely, now I'm getting an Admin involved. If you self revert, I won't report you. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask once more, if you self revert your comment, I will not report your conduct. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or I can report you too for, again, removing my content from a talk page. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the relevant section of Policy WP:TALK for why I did it. I was trying to help settle a content dispute that you are involved in and as I stated, disclosed my background in relation to the subject matter. You then chose to make a comment about it, "No one cares about your descent but thank you for revealing it anyways, we will take that into consideration too." Granted, you were expressing your opinion, but it could have just as easily been left out. Making personal comments about other editors is generally seen as a offensive gesture and does little to gain you support for any stance you have. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, 14, to be offended and sensitive all the time? If you want to remove my comment do so, but remove you Bosnian/Croatian heriatge too. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued attacks are not helping your case. If you wish to remove my comment about my heritage, I give you permission to do so as long as you remove your comment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't flatter yourself, I'm not attacking anyone. And you have my permission to remove both comments. ;) 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude does not help either. I am in the middle of drafting the complaint. You have my permission to remove my comment along with yours or you can just self revert your comment and the issue will be over. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do it yourself, I'm busy right now. 212.178.230.159 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Voice (U.S. TV series)

Why do you keep posting March as the premiere of season 8, when it's supposed to be February?

http://www.nbc.com/the-voice

I have not posted anything to this article, I simply reviewed the edit when it came up on the Special:PendingChanges list. If an edit is formatted properly and sourced, I usually approve it. Please sign your posts. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ashley Long
added a link pointing to Compilation
Free Speech Coalition
added a link pointing to AVN
Juelz Ventura
added a link pointing to Brazilian
Measure B
added a link pointing to Michael Weinstein
Tanya Tate
added a link pointing to MILF

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth (actor)

Hi, i'm curious. I fixed a link on the above article and you reverted it - why? Denisarona (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review I see that that WP's Rollback feature bundled your edit with several others. I'm never sure why it does this when articles are placed on the Special:PendingChanges list, but it happens on occasion. If your edit was legitimate, my apologies. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the doubt (if your edit was legitimate ..... ) Denisarona (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Bowl and References

Hi. I noticed you've reverted some of the Pro Bowl updates made to various NFL player pages by an anonymous user, because of a lack of reference. It seems that the articles don't typically include a reference for things like that, which is perhaps an unfortunate trend, but I don't think reverting is the right thing to do in this case. I wonder if there's a forum somewhere that would address this. Gmporr (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting things that came up on the Special:PendingChanges list per WP:CRYSTAL because they were in the future. I know about the basic updates about statistics and such with sports teams and players and routinely approve those. If there is an appropriate forum, I'm happy to participate. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; now I understand where you're coming from. But I guess I view the addition of Pro Bowl info to articles as reflecting their selection, not necessarily their participation in the game. Gmporr (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but that's hard to tell without an Edit Summary either. No source and no edit summary when WP:CRYSTAL exists = revert for now. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Young

In Megan Young, you reverted changing her successor as Miss World Asia from Thailand Nonthawan Thongleng to India Koyal Rana, because "unsourced". However, according to List of Miss World Continental Queen of Beauty winners#1989; 2013-, her successor was indeed Koyal Rana, and Koyal Rana says she was Miss World Asia 2014 (although it is admittedly a bit confusing on this) whereas Nonthawan Thongleng isn't listed in List of Miss World Continental Queen of Beauty winners and her own page says nothing about Miss World Asia. I realize it's tempting to revert unsourced changes, but when the change can be checked by clicking the Wikilink, it's good to do so. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after the 2nd time and I looked into it and saw that it was properly linked and attributed. On the most recent edit, I approved it, so there is no longer an issue as far as I am aware. Thank you for checking in. Happy Holidays! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 16:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 —Josh3580talk/hist 16:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself!

Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moore and Ward

ok - you are edit warring disputed content into the life story of a living person - wp:blp - please stop it - use the deletion discussion or the blpnoticeboard WP:BLPN to resolve the issue - thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Govindaharihari, You're a "day late and a dollar short" on this one. There's already been discussion on Noticeboards, an AfD, and there will probably be an ANI about the behavior of those involved and the long term abuse of the articles involved. But those are the breaks. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

This IP User is BANNED from my Talk page for an outright refusal to communicate using a registered account. In the span of just this one discussion, they have used 2 different IP addresses. Dealing with civil IP Users can be difficult enough at times, so I choose not to deal with this particular IP user ON MY TALK PAGE. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP has pointed out to me that by referring without qualification to the old nickname that was assigned to him in some quarters, I've implied I agreed that some of his edits were vandalism; in fact I don't. I shouldn't have left that up to you looking up the AN/I discussions. There is a now largely historical "long-term abuse" page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP; it does not include vandalism among the complaints. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yngvadottir, There's nothing to apologize or explain to me about, I took no offense and see no reason to. As for that link, what a stupid thing IMO to delete and edit war over. Oh well, that person is probably very bored and lonely. Happy Holidays! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem completely unaware that falsely accusing someone of vandalism is a grave personal attack and highly disruptive behaviour. You did it twice. I await your explanation and apology. 82.33.71.205 (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are correct about one thing, I am completely unaware of what your are talking about. So providing difs would be helpful or if nothing else go towards giving you some credibility. From there I will decide if an apology is in order. Otherwise coming to my Talk page and making any kind of demand just equates to trolling in my opinion. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Scalhotrod, happy holidays to you. Let's move on. The IP is an old acquaintance--older than you, haha. The Green Egg says "chill". Merry Christmas And To All A Good Night, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, enough said. Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to you Sir...! P.S. I'm rotisserie-ing a New York strip roast tomorrow! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely accused me of vandalism twice. If you don't even remember doing so, that only compounds your behaviour. Here they are: [1], [2]. You don't get to decide if an apology is in order; it is. You do get to decide whether you want to admit your error and apologise for it, though, and I wait with interest to see what you decide. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now that I have some frame of reference, I can comment. With regard to the first dif[3], you are correct. That was contrary to Talk page policy and that is why I changed the section title[4] when it was brought to my attention. If you feel slighted by that, then my apology to you for the perceived insult, it was not intended to be one. As for the 2nd dif[5], that was the use of the "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments" template {{subst:uw-tpv2}} from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. It's the recommended and standard message for when an Editor changes another's comments. I was under the impression that you had added your comments after the conversation was closed since SummerPhD had removed them, that is why I removed it and why I left the template message on your Talk page. That was an honest mistake on my part, but if you choose to feel slighted in any way from a minor thing that happened 4 days ago, that is your issue to resolve. I have taken Drmies advice and moved on. With regard to future communication, you are on your second IP just for this one discussion. Until you register an account and use it consistently for communication, I request that you stay off of my Talk page. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply and apology. With regard to the second point, you were editing my talk page comments; I was not editing anyone else's. If I need to communicate with you in future, I will use your talk page, whether I have an account or not. I do not foresee any such need. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I removed "...your persistent trolling and stalking is not helpful to anyone, and is clearly not intended to be. Stop it....Rambling on incoherently...Stop trolling" as personal attacks. The IP has repeatedly restored it, despite numerous "reminders"[6][7](includes the admin mistakely believing the restoration was before their prior warning, not that further restorations proved to be a problem)[8] not to make personal attacks. How many reminders the IP needs has not yet been established. I'm sure it will eventually sink in. After five years of warnings and blocks, we must be getting close.
To be clear: the material here have been repeatedly determined to be personal attacks. "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Unless someone would care to argue they are not, I will removed them. The IP, of course, is free to redact them, but apparently either does not understand what a personal attack is or that "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." (It would be the height of stupidity to speculate as to why they don't see sanctions/blocks as an impediment to their repeated personal attacks.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop stalking me. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged here. Your accusation of stalking is therefore false. Following your lead, I would like an apology. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true, I pinged Summer [9]. You now owe her an apology for your unfounded and untrue accusation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment [10], the User known by 82.33.71.205 and 200.83.101.225 and any future interations is BANNED from my Talk page. Attempts to circumvent this will be considered Vandalism and/or Harassment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Talkback

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 14:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 —Josh3580talk/hist 14:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Neptune's Trident's talk page.
Message added 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

 —Josh3580talk/hist 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ward/Moore

No problem at all with withdrawing the deletion discussion under this situation. I can request closure with a decision to redirect. Do you really think though that a misadventure / killing such as this, minor reported, 15 years old, about two people of very minor note, with no continued reporting at all, is worthy of a notable wikipedia article? Govindaharihari (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Govindaharihari, thank you for your cooperative efforts. As for the solution we're proposing, I'm not trying to judge the content, but rather just preserve information that already exists on WP. I regard Notability as relative, what is minor or insignificant to one community, might be critical or of vital importance to another. That said, on a personal note, the "misadventure" involves the death of a person and I do not consider death insignificant. Granted, people die every day, but few have it documented in the press in such a public manner. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I have no personal pig in the poke, just tying to assist the dispute along to a correct conclusion within Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - my interpretation is that there is a degree of personal involvement in the desire to use wikipedia to publish this, I remain in the hope that wikipedia's viable enough to delete these two low note life stories thank you for the well presented reply. Happy holidays Govindaharihari (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No involvement on my end either, but I don't care for anyone trying to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia whether its personal or not, why else would someone go to such WP:SOCKPUPPET lengths. Once we create the unified article, I see no reason to keep the BLP articles. I can ask an Admin to speedy delete them. Happy Holidays! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Johns

Sory but could you please be more specific as to why you chose to deny my edit? You state that I moved sections and de-emphasize the controversy section. Yes I moved the section, but only because there was another similar section which seem like they go hand in hand with each other (Lawsuits and controversies)....I also think this better emphasized the controversies because now instead of being listed under a Level-3 Heading, it is much more prominent with a Level-2 heading. I admit the titles could be improved for the subsections, but other than that Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's contrary to the Wkipedia Manual of Style and policy to emphasize "controversies" regarding people or subjects. Content based on reliable sources must be presented in a neutral manner, positive or negative information must be presented as a neutral reporting of facts. WP:UNDUE also states that content that is particularly positive or negative not be given preferential placement in an article.
If you review my subsequent edit you will see that I moved the material about lawsuits to a sections called "Litigation" and the rest to a section called "Media coverage". It looks like the article still needs additional cleanup. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlhgeo1990 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Diamond Foxxx
added a link pointing to TRON
Dorothy King
added a link pointing to Gender gap

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change on Larry Ellison page

Hi. I'm curious as to why you removed my edits to the page for Larry Ellison. My revision was accurate and referenced. Appreciate your feedback. Fishbones123 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fishbones123, I see that you are new to Wikipedia, so first things first, Welcome to the site and community! No knowing how new you are to this community, it would have been helpful to you if I had been more detailed with my Edit Summary explaining the reversion. I should also explain that there was recently a content (actually more of a choice of grammar) dispute regarding this article, so its being watched a bit more than usual in addition to the fact that its a biography of a living person (BLP) article as well as someone that is fairly well known. Plus, you made your changes to the WP:Lead of the article, which is a summary of the key points of the entire article. Many Editors consider it the most critical portion of an article. It's usually not a place for such minute detail, judgements, or conclusions unless they are well documented in secondary sources. Basically, nothing should be in it that has not already been mentioned in the body of an article.
That said, both of your edits were somewhat problematic and brought up several core policies for all articles. Those policies are WP:UNDUE, Original Research, Synthesis, and Neutral Point of View and to a lesser extent WP:Paraphrase and the use of Wikipedia's "voice". In the first edit [11] you added detail that, yes, was sourced and was lifted directly from the source, but it was out of context. In fact your source never mentions Ellison, nor did it compare his contributions to anyone. The addition of this information was effectively a judgement made about Ellison that you used another source to establish. That is not allowed per WP:SYNTH. In the body of the article if you had mentioned that "according to a 2013 Forbes article about the Ken Stern book With Charity for All: Why Charities Are Failing and a Better Way to Give about the philanthropy of the Forbes 400" the average giving was 5.3%, that's different. Even then its fairly POV laden by comparing Ellison with an average considering that he is #3 on the list and the earning of the 400 is such a wide spectrum. It also unfairly emphasizes the comparison with it in the Lead which makes it WP:UNDUE.
In the second edit [12], you removed text, "in particular after a motorcycle accident in the early 1990s" this was mentioned in the body and added "He was one of the first 40 to sign" which is not entirely accurate. He was "one of 40", but we do not necessarily know if he was #1 or #40 or where he falls on that list. Furthermore, and this ties back to the original comment about his giving, if you check the Charitabe donations section, it says that Ellison committed to "giving away at least 95 percent of my wealth to charitable causes."[1] At this point, the comparison of his 1% to the 5.3% "average" is just misleading and prejudicial, bringing in WP:NPOV. Granted, its a WP:Primary source and that comes with its own set of issues and requirements, but its allowable in this context.
Hopefully this all makes sense. I've included relevant links and encourage you to read up on these policies. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Giving Pledge: Larry Ellison". Retrieved August 8, 2010.

An extremely helpful and well-sourced reply. I appreciate your time. Although I do think Ellison is being, ahem, a little self-promotional about his charitable efforts. I'll be mindful of the things you've written about here, better references and avoiding POV issues, in the future. Thank you! Fishbones123 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, find someone that wealthy that isn't... :) Chances are its one of his PR people and not him personally. But I'm glad that I could be helpful. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a bacon-filled new year!

As a member of WikiProject Bacon, I'm wishing you a very happy New Year's Eve and a great 2015! May your new year be filled with positive experiences, great wiki contributions, and of course, well-smoked thin-cut bacon. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Scalhotrod,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Bzuk, Many thanks and the same to you!!! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (Peace, Love, and Happiness to all!)[reply]

Content blanking

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We don't blank entire sections of articles as you did here, so that they can be "restructured". I urge you to restore the material and make any specific edit proposals on the talk page, as is common practice.- MrX 19:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess contrary to your experience, its a method I have seen used elsewhere. Given that the article is a BLP, there has been edit warring over the content and sources of the section, and that its poorly written IMO, BLP policy permits my action. The fact that I moved it to the Talk page demonstrates my good faith and intention to keep content that everyone has contributed to and can agree on. Thank you for your suggestion. Happy New Year, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I have seen (and done) in the past is copy a section to the talk page to work on. I have removed sections and copied to the talk page of some low traffic, non-controversial articles, but I always invited any user to revert me. That seems to be what happened here, so I guess this is now a non-issue.
BTW, BLP does not permit content blanking except in unambiguous cases of unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. Happy New Year!- MrX 20:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, hence the blank and move, the Edit Warring was happening before I came along. But reverting is far easier for some than contributing actual work, oh well... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

GOCE 2014 report

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report
Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • Review the election results;
  • Membership news;
  • Changes around the Guild's pages;
  • Plans for 2015.
– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Well thank you for the very nice words. Now to be fair, I wasn't lazy, I just thought it would made more sense. But anyway thank you. :) (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'm very much in favor of "good ideas" and there are plenty that are applied to this site everyday. But, we have WP policy to follow as well, and when it comes to BLP articles there are a group of Editors who love nothing more than to ransack an OK article because they find literally a single unsourced claim. In fact, an Editor was just Topic Banned at WP:ANI for disruptive editing on BLP articles. Take care, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk on the article talk page of the William Shockley article

Hi, Scalhotrod,

Have you obtained any of the published books about William Shockley yet? I see that he is one of those guys such that "truth is stranger than fiction," and I've been very surprised by some of what I have found out about him as I have read books about him for the past several years. I am hoping to do a major expansion of that article--a Nobel laureate with a book-length published biography and several other book chapters written about him ought to have a Wikipedia featured article about him, methinks--but since 2010 as I have edited that article, I have often encountered reversions of edits by editors (often but not always I.P. editors) who have consulted exactly none of the sources. I think that we could make a lot of forward progress in improving that article by using the published, reliable, secondary sources to check article edits and using the article talk page to discuss edits as we go. For sources, I particularly recommend first Riordan, Michael; Hoddeson, Lillian (1997). Crystal Fire: The Invention of the Transistor and the Birth of the Information Age. Sloan Technology Series. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-04124-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) about the history of the transistor and the development of electronics industry in Silicon Valley; second Shurkin, Joel (2006). Broken Genius: The Rise and Fall of William Shockley, Creator of the Electronic Age. Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-8815-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) about Shockley's whole life by his family's authorized biographer; and third Tucker, William H. (2007) [first published 2002]. The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) about Schockley and several of Shockley's colleagues in his later phase of political activism on issues other than electronics. Those books are all readily available from libraries. There are many other good sources about Shockley, but those books will be especially helpful for checking and rechecking article text as the article is expanded. By the way, the last time I adjusted article headings in the article my adjustments were (1) in view of the sources that I have already read, anticipating issues for the article expansion and improvement to good article status and then featured article status, and (2) based on a suggested outline for WikiProject biography articles I saw built into a template. I'm taking a look just now at the latest edits you have made to article, to make sure I can expand forward as I check the article sources exhaustively (which is what I have been occupied in doing the last two evenings). See you on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WeijiBaikeBianji, I think that there have been some great edits (yours included) to the article recently and that its shaping up as a group effort quite nicely. I commend your intentions to expand it as well as develop it into a featured article. But at the same time, I feel that as an Encyclopedic article it should primarily focus on the technology side of his life and only tacitly mention his political, genetic, and/or anthropology views.
Shockley's article will obviously never be a replacement for any book written about him, nor should it try to detail every aspect of his life. I feel that the article should have a well developed "Further reading" section and facilitate as much as possible locating those books. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Dave Owen Ward

Just thought you should know (and any other editors you know who might be interested). Another reliable source was found for the Killing of Dave Oren Ward article.

Here it is from July 1999 in The Advocate:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qWQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=dave+oren+ward+los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=kGnC1adEik&sig=ZQT6ZBnneNQq9prqZzmIiaPfe9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3ZunVIbfDYLYoATX7YKYBw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=dave%20oren%20ward%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

In it the article mentions that Nate Moore was raised in Beverly Hills and his parents were a judge and assistant district attorney. Guess that's who those sockpuppets were pretending to be attorneys, Nate Moore's parents. Strange. Neptune's Trident (talk)

Wow, interesting. Next to impossible to prove a claim like that, but if it were one or both parents that would explain a thing or too. Only a parent would show devotion like that to keep trying to remove the information. I can't say that I wouldn't do the same under those circumstances, but what a mess this has become. All the attempts at removing it are just encouraging people to expand the article and find more sources. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fassbender

Just dropping you a message so you know why I reverted that entry. It was discussed previously and consensus was to leave this type of temporary thing out. Murry1975 (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no worries, it came up on the Special:PendingChanges list, hence my involvement with the article at all. Thank you for the correction... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, its not possible to read every talkpage and see if every random edit is/isnt against consensus or just a random act. For the record, I think it was a random act, that just happened to be inline with consensus. Cheers bud. Murry1975 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock at William Shockley

Actually the sock investigation should reference Flyer322. That appears to be the sock master account. MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - it's been blocked anyhow. MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MelanieN, so did this correct it? Somebody beat me to it... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Orchard Supply Hardware
added links pointing to Mountain View and North Beach
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
added a link pointing to USC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP

Hey Scalhotrod, please just leave it be. There is little good you can do here; I know you are of good faith, but it is the way it is. You can always vent on my page--or, if you like, drop me a line. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as always I trust your judgement... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum

Dueling conversations, lets keep it at the List article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You reverted my reversion of your edit on Talk:List of model railroad clubs. You had initialy deleted another user's comments based on the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTAFORUM. That policy forbids the use of Wikipedia talk pages to discuss matters not related to the building of the encyclopedia. The comment you deleted related directly to the building of the encyclopedia by commenting on the validity of the article content. That type of talk page content is exactly what talk pages are for, and should not be deleted by other users. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Yep, it was an opinion about "the validity of the article content". If such a thing is going to be discussed it needs be done at the appropriate Noticeboard or maybe the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The principles involved apply to all articles, just about a token amount of fairly meaningless topics relative to the rest of Wikipedia. A blanket statement on a Talk page like that is fairly blatantly POV and does not belong there. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe you're correct about that. The discussion of an article's contents should appear on the article talk page. The venues you mention would be appropriate for much broader topics such as changes to or violations of Wikipedia policy. The statement in question was not a POV, but merely a discussion of content related to relavent WP:MOS guidelines. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, a list of "clubs" (of whatever flavor) should not contain all clubs, but only notable clubs. In this case, the only notable model railroad clubs are those that already have Wikipedia articles, and therefore, the commenter was commenting on the fact that these are the only entries that should appear in the list. The fact that you don't agree with the comment does not make the comment invalid.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're imposing an opinion or your interpretation as policy and the Admins generally don't like that. I see people get banned or blocked at WP:ANI on a regular basis for such a hard line stance.
5 years ago (that's how old the statement was) somebody stated their opinion about what they considered "OK" for that list article. For the benefit of Wikipedia Project and the article itself, that's about as ludicrous of a position to take as possible. That person could have easily started a discussion like you have about what should be listed, citing relevant policy, and having civil discourse. But NO, they stated, "The only valid entries are as follows:". That's laughable, anyone making a claim like that at ANI would get shut down in record time. It's just not how the site works.
Again, I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory and that's why we don't have articles that are link farms without references that are a field of WP:REDLINKS. Those are Directories in the sense that you are describing. Feel free to disagree, but do it in the correct way and forum. Start with a search of relevant discussion at the List article Talk page. The Admins and project coordinators appreciate that too. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Talkback?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello I left a new messge for you on the talk page for one of your other accounts I believe. Keeping things civil, would you please at your convenience tell me your thoughts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any "other accounts", what are you talking about? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scalhotrod/Killing_of_Dave_Oren_Ward .....if you didn't create this user, then I apologize. You could see how I could make the error in assuming it was you. I wasn't accusing you of socking. I am honestly attempting to Communicate to you in a civil manner. For real.🐍 23:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)

That material is in my Sandbox space and allowable. It was also created before the mainspace article that was deleted, the history shows this. Given your blatant history of Sock Puppetry, I have no interest in communicating with you, please stay off of my Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sure sounds like a hostile attitude. Especially given that your associate who you created the now deleted article was also Banned for two weeks for socking. But I'm attempting to move past this. My understanding of sandboxes us that they are not online or found in searches. Therefore why is this user page / article found online? Seriously it could appear that it was a preemptive attempt to "keep" a controversial article. If you don't want to erase it modify it that's fine. I'm trying to resolve the issue before discussing it with anyone else. Perhaps we should ask the admins what they think. Again, in the spirit of working with others, regardless of personal feelings, I am addressing this with you. Would you like to show everyone your ability to be a bigger person here? I am tryi🐍 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)ng to do that myself by reaching out to you. Or you could Continue to be hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)

I can't control how you interpret written text. On the other hand, you are a confirmed WP:SOCKPUPPET[13]. I don't know (and don't care for that matter) if you are Nate Moore or one of his parents or someone else closely connected to him. But, your actions have shown me that you are here to do and say whatever it takes to accomplish your agenda. You are banned from my Talk page, do not post here again. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing RM discussions

You might want to read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions if you're going to be trying to close RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dicklyon, was it contested? I've seen bickering over tv episode titles before, but the general consensus (meaning across several article discussion and Boards) has seemingly been to associate it with the series especially if there are numerous articles for each episode. I've seen Users revert citing Disam policy previously (and be reverted back again), but it really makes no sense once the rest of the episodes are similarly titled. The common sense approach would seem to have the episode articles all titled the same way with the series attribute. Is there any particular common sense in having some of the articles use NCIS in the title and others do not? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was contested; but it needs to be properly closed, as a record of the decision, and so that it no longer shows up in the listing of open RMs at WP:RM. The move is usually part of the close; closing is not optional. In this case, it sounds like you are not neutral on the question, so you should just support, and wait for a neutral closer. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean procedurally. Got it, thanks. I'll go back and take a look. Thank you for the link to the instructions as well. :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Research Invitation

Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Marge6914 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marge6914, If you don't mind the question, how and/or why was I selected? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects. Md gilbert (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Md gilbert, that page didn't really answer my question, but I'm happy to help. What do I need to do? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scalhotrod, That would be great! If you'd like, you can reach out to me at mdg@uw.edu and we can setup a time that works for you and answer any questions you may have. Regarding selection, at this point we're looking to specifically find Wikipedians who appear to have an established history with WikiProjects since our focus will be on understanding coordination practices within online teams, and future means of better supporting those practices. Thank you again for your interest! Md gilbert (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
27 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Red Riding Hood (2003 film) (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Add sources
521 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Sergio Busquets (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Add sources
2,522 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Kane (wrestler) (talk) Add sources
653 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Big E Langston (talk) Add sources
120 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: B Martin (name) (talk) Please add more images Please add more sources Add sources
4,627 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Dave Bautista (talk) Add sources
50 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Disney Holidays Unwrapped (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Cleanup
168 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Jessie Godderz (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Cleanup
1,478 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (talk) Cleanup
4,523 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Cate Blanchett (talk) Expand
2,955 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Graphics display resolution (talk) Please add more images Expand
23 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Ali Kuli Khan Khattak (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Expand
26 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: C Somaly Mam Foundation (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
81 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Argentina–Brazil football rivalry (talk) Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
46 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Professional wrestling championship (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
22 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Start McGuire (surname) (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Merge
11 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Merge
52 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Arbor Day Foundation (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more sources Merge
43 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: FA Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties (talk) Please add more images Wikify
900 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA The X Factor (U.S. TV series) (talk) Wikify
45 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: FA Iraq Body Count project (talk) Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start ALHEBS, Jaleshwar (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start AC Hazlet rye (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Orphan
1 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Antonie Aris van de Loosdrecht (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
295 Quality: High, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: GA Married to Jonas (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Stub
29 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Scorned: Love Kills (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
20 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Weed Country (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
19 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start I Married a Mobster (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
14 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Maradona by Kusturica (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
219 Quality: High, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: GA Taylor St. Claire (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Mitchell

Hi

Can I please ask why this edit to Grant Mitchell (EastEnders) was accepted? It is clearly unreferenced and looking at the IP talk page and contributions they have not been editing constructively recently.

I notice that I had to warn you recently about a very similar edit to Tanya Branning. Please could you be more careful in future or you could end up with your reviewer rights being withdrawn. Thank you--5 albert square (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 5 albert square, in that particular instance that was WP:AGF in action. Based, in part, on the subject being a fictional character and given that I had just approved (as you noted) a similar edit for Tanya Branning which was clearly sourced, I AGF'd that the Editor involved was making a constructive edit as well and approved it. If that particular factoid was incorrect for that fictional character, I also assumed that someone more knowledgeable about the character or show would correct it since at first glance it was not obvious vandalism.
Also, as an Admin, you should know better than to toss out a threat like "or you could end up with your reviewer rights being withdrawn" when the Reviewer policy is clearly on my side. I spend a great deal of time on the Special:PendingChanges list. In fact, I usually start my day with a cup of coffee and a review of it. I have stopped being shocked or surprised when I see BLP articles that have gone nearly 24 hours without a review nor do I get upset about something as minor as the edit you have warned me about. Please could you be more careful in the future. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pariah (1998 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Turner and Joe Wood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twit comment

It is of course in response to Incidents#Editor_calling_me_a_twit, which you must know as you contributed to the debate. The editor evidently belives that it is perfectly OK to repeatedly use such language about another editor and about an admin who mildly admonished him for it. IMO, the dismissive tone of other editors at ANI is wholly disgraceful. If the consensus of editors at ANI is that it's perfectly OK, and that the complainant should "grow some blah blah" then the editor should expect to get what he gives without being protected from the potential suffering by other editors. If not, then the attitude at ANI is what's at fault. That was my point. Paul B (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you. And, trust me, I'm all too aware of the ongoing Civility debate across WP. I was neck deep in the muck and mire during the infamous "C-word" debates just a few months ago. It just seemed like your comment was a little "too heated". My apologies if I stole any of your thunder, I had the best intentions. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. No worries, as the Aussies say. Paul B (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I'm a Yank and use the same phrase often... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scalhotrod&oldid=642640176"