User talk:Discott

Archived talk pages can be viewed here.

• To see discussions from September 2010 to November 2015 see: User:Discott/talk archive 1
• To see discussions from December 2015 to November 2017 see: User:Discott/talk archive 2
• To see discussions from December 2017 to February 2019 see: User:Discott/talk archive 3
• To see discussions from March 2017 to May 2022 see: User:Discott/talk archive 4

Proposed deletion of Metlife Centre

The article Metlife Centre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable building

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 197 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I suppose it is now becoming a bit long and janky thanks to all the competition notifications I get.--Discott (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WMZA Membership - TapticInfo

Hi Discott, Hope you been well spamming everyone with Wikimania 2022 invites. I just want to enquire about Wikimedia ZA Membership. I recently filled out the Google form and want to know how I can make a crypto currency donation and What I could do to help. TapticInfo (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi TapticInfo, thank you for the enquirey and I see that you have made an application to join the chapter which is great! Shupai should have gotten back to you confirming your membership by now. If not then please let me know. The application process is straight forward in that it simply involves filing out a short form and making an annual donation of any amount to the chapter. The donation acts as the membership due. You are more than welcome to make the donation in crypto. The best way to help is just to get involved in chapter activities by volunteering to help out with events, attending meetups (it has been great seeing you in them), and/or offering to organise your own Wiki related events. --Discott (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Discott:, Thanks for getting back to me. I haven’t received a Email from Shupai yet. TapticInfo (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Again, Shupai Has reached out on my talk page, I think there was an error with me filling out the Google form, but I’m still waiting for an email and where to donate. TapticInfo (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:AEEI company logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:AEEI company logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

UCT

Hello @Discott. Your recent edits seem to be quite one-sided because the media reports you cite have some glaring inaccuracies. Since Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, here is the statement from UCT rebutting several of the media claims. It is also interesting that her recent African Education Medal was not mentioned at all, but only inaccurate information which may paint her in an unfavorable light. Ear-phone (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bobbyshabangu Ear-phone (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ear-phone, thank you for pointing out the rebuttal and the need to add it to the relevant page. I did try to be neutral by adding statements the VC's self proclaimed supporters made but I had not seen the the UCT rebuttal by the time I made those additions. I also feel that adding citations from additional sources would be good for the article and NPOV because currently the section is too heavily reliant on the Daily Maverick. Please do add the new citations you have mentioned. I can also do it but I feel it would be better for NPOV if someone else also contributed to this section. As for inaccuracies within the media sources (mostly Daily Maverick I assume), beyond the ones I read about (and disputed/refuted by the Daily Maverick) in this article (which I read this morning) I am not aware of any in these sources. That is why I think it needs more people than just me editing that article and section as there will be more people picking up on these sorts of issues. --Discott (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Discott. Thank you for the links. I had already added the Africa Medal Award. My primary question is: Why do you find (contested) prejudicial content on the UCT Vice-Chancellor despite the fact that there is bona fide (non-contested) favorable content as well? Why do you expect someone else to present a neutral point of view, while you edit in a particular way?

Wikipedia has a policy regarding Biographies of living persons, which states that, "Contentious material about living persons...must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The section on controversy is arguably the longest, also detailing events from her first term, yet this is a UCT Vice-Chancellor who was re-appointed to a second term resoundingly via an extensive consultative process.

@Bobbyshabangu

Ear-phone (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ear-phone, It seems you misunderstood me. I apologize if I might have been unclear in my previous reply. I do not (as you said) "expect someone else to present a neutral point of view." I always try to maintain NPOV in my edits as I thought I made clear in my previous reply. I am simply recognising that the pursuit of NPOV requires a collective effort. That things that might seem NPOV to some people might not seem NPOV to others. In reply to your point on the biographies section I would like to point out that the full section of that policy states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." The section in question clearly was not "unsourced" and I do not believe that that section was poorly sourced, indeed it cites multiple sources. As such it wild be improper to remove it without first discussing the issue on the talk page. I don't see how the possibility that the Controversy section of the subject's page is the longest is relevant here. I saw that there was an issue of public interest being talked about in the public in multiple reliable sources (or sources usually regarded as reliable) and I decided to make a contribution that I thought would improve the relevant article based upon that source. I did so in good faith and in the belief that it was notable and in the public interest. I make these sorts of edits all the time as do thousands of other Wikipedia editors on a regular basis. I still believe these references are good sources, both in general and on the subject at hand here. If you disagree with that then we will need to discuss, on the article talk page, why you believe the sources I used are bad or otherwise untrustworthy.--Discott (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

On another issue, you seem to be suggesting that I am cherry picking my references. If so that is an accusation I would strongly reject. At the time I made those edits I did try to find references that refuted or presented an alternative point of view. I was unsuccessful at the time. I did not check for such sources daily to make any updates as I was not following the story on a daily basis but rather hap haphazardly, that is reasonable and I would venture to say 'normal' Wiki behaviour. Sometimes I am slow to add content as I might a) wait a while to see how the issue might progress so I can get a better understanding of it or b) might hope that someone else might pickup where I left off or c) get distracted by life. My assumption was that this is Wikipedia, a wiki where other people can also add, update, change and/or correct items where needs be. That be as it may, I do wish to thank you for bringing UCT's retort to my attention and, as such, have decided to update the article with it and the Daily Maverick's responce to it. If you feel that I have been incomplete in anyway or made any errors then please feel free to also contribute to the article. Discott (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Discott: Why would one 'edit' haphazardly (to use your word) a topic that is contentious and clearly evolving when according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, ...". I find it interesting that her winning a very notable education award around the same time was information not found and added. This award is in the public interest, which I added subsequently. Like you, I came to this article because of the recent media attention, but it was quite easy to find reliable information refuting the sources that cite anonymous persons and read more like sensational journalism. If you "always try to maintain NPOV in my edits" (to use your words), why would it be a haphazard process and why is there disproportionate focus on contentious material potentially prejudicial with favorable non-contentious material also in the public interest not included? Ear-phone (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ear-phone Again I feel as though you have misinterpreted me. I did NOT say I was editing "hapazardly", I did say that I was following the story "haphazardly." Like most people do when following any news item. I did not obsessively follow the story as it unfolded in the media but rather when I had time to check or happened to come across articles once I had already added the section. It seems as though most of the sources presenting a view favorable to the subject had come out after I had written the bulk of that section. I have explained that I did try to find sources that presented an alternative point of view to the DM and News24 but was unsuccessful at the time. If you feel you have found such sources then please feel free to add them. This is a Wiki after all, it is collective project.

As for the award, I was unaware of the award until you mentioned it to me. Thank you for adding it, I encourage you to continue to edit and improve the article. The focus on the controversy in my most recent editing of the article was because that was the subject I was trying to understand and so that was what I was researching.

At this point I would like to point out that I feel as though you are trying to catch me out in a gotcha moment. This makes me feel as though you are not engaging with me on this issue in good faith. I hope that I am wrong here but even if I am not I would still encourage adopting the assumption of good faith. Discott (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, @Discott:. You keep asking me to add to this article as if I haven't already done so voluntarily. By the way, this ongoing conversation is also helpful because it has resulted in modifications to the articles. It appears that you view me as your lackey who requires encouragement to contribute to this particular topic.

We occasionally end up editing the same article, possibly because we both favor South African-related articles. I thought back to a time when you posted information to a Wikipedia page (see our 2020 discussion - Allegations section) that could be taken negatively about the subject, despite Wikipedia policy saying that if a denial has been made, it should also be included. Even if I don't know much about these developing stories, it still surprises me that when I Google a subject for a biography, I can readily find non-controversial information of public interest that is not included and would offer NPOV, frequently near the top of search results. You, however, assert that you are unaware of this information's existence.

I appreciate your discourse and conversation. I'll continue on to other topics. Ear-phone (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: I hope you can forgive me for feeling a bit frustrated with this conversation as I feel as though you are consistently interpreting all of my attempts at genuine encouragement and inclusion in a constantly negative light. I in no way view you, or anyone else, as my "lackey." I am simply trying to encourage people to edit Wikipedia if they feel there is anything missing, areas of improvement that are needed, NPOV that could be improved, or if any errors have been made; and that they are welcome to make changes as some editors might feel cautious editing someone else's work.

You complained that the section I added was problematic which is fine, even if I sometimes disagree with you or might fail to see what about my writing is problematic given the time frame within which it was written in. This is where this being a Wiki comes in as I, as should all Wikipedia editors, rely on other editors to help 'complete' an article. This completion can be in the form of more information, keeping it up-to-date, editing better pros, better article structure or something else. However it is hard for me to take these criticisms seriously if you are not prepared to try and correct, or at least make suggestions on how to correct an issue. Something constructive. Instead I feel as though I am being treated with hostility and vague insinuations of bias.

I also feel a bit frustrated because I don't even know what edits you hope to see being made to the article in question. Do you want the addition of rebuttals, that is great and I am happy to add them (I also agree that it is very important to add them) but why do I have to be the one to always add it and why the unrealistic expectation that I need to be able to know about them as soon as they are public? Do you want the whole section to be deleted? That would be problematic. Do you want me to stop adding controversy sections to articles? That would also be problematic and, I feel, not in the public interest. Do you want me to edit an article as a whole when I choose to edit it at one particular time? If so then surely it is up to what I, as an unpaid volunteer editor, feel like editing in the moment; ie, it is an editor's personal choice to edit what and when they feel like? Also, for many articles, that is often not plausible given the size and complexity of some articles. Discott (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Discott: I'm sorry you feel that way. We obviously don't share the same core understanding of what NPOV is, thus I want to move on. I want to start editing other articles. You claim, "if you are not prepared to try and correct, or at least make suggestions on how to correct an issue". As previously noted, I made voluntary edits to the article to try to improve NPOV and add more details. Ironically, you added some of this information, from the links I found, when you updated the article. I concur that "it is an editor's personal choice to edit what and when they feel like", but within the existing frameworks and policy. I'm hoping you'll let me make the very personal decisions you espouse. The very best wishes to you. Ear-phone (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: all edits on Wikipedia should be voluntary, I would be very worried if anyone wasn't making edits voluntarily with the freedom to edit on what ever subject they wish (so long as there is no conflict of interests) and to do so when ever they wish. We are all unpaid volunteers after all; excluding the very small minority of paid editors (a rightly frowned upon activity). I am not so sure we do "obviously don't share the same core understanding of what NPOV is." I am interested in knowing how you feel it might be different but I am worried if we have a different "core understanding" of what it is. I suspect we might rather have a different philosophy of how NPOV is achieved and possibly different expectations of our fellow editors.

My philosophy is that achieving NPOV is like a quest for the holy grail in that we must always strive for it even if it is impossible to achieve at times. A quest that requires many, and ideally a diverse, group of people; in addition to time, and constant work and all governed by the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. That 'what is NPOV' on a different subjects tend to evolve over time even though its path is dictated up the principles of Wikipedia's NPOV rules. I think it would be presumptive of me to assume what your view is but from what I can tell it seems to be a bit different from the one I just outlined.

Having said that I also wish you all the very best and would like to thank you for all the excellent edits you have made; both on South Africa related articles and on medical related articles. Given your interest in medical topics I would like to respectfully suggest that you consider joining Wiki Project Medicine (if you are not already a member). They are a truly excellent thematic group on Wikipedia that are always doing a wide range of interesting projects. They are by far the biggest and best organised thematic group that I am aware of on Wikipedia. Discott (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments @Discott:. You keep giving me these unsolicited encouragements/suggestions about what I should consider/do, as if I've never considered these things or participated in such activities/projects before/currently. I find this patronizing. That is why I said, I am not your lackey. That is another reason I wish to move on from this discussion. I am no longer going to reply. BW. Ear-phone (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ear-phone, I apologise for trying to be helpful. I promise not to do so with you again. Discott (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello

@Dyolf77 (WMF) Hello! Dyolf77 (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

• Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
• Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
• BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
• Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
• Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
• Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
• PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
• Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

• Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
• Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
• Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
• Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
• Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
• SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
• Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
• Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
• Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
• Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Pepper fry chicken

Pepper fry chicken 122.148.169.252 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)