User talk:Scottywong

Previous report

Hello,

I previously reported an user for vandalism. As you stated, reverting chances is not vandalism. Nonetheless, rejecting updates due to discrimination doesn't seem quite accordingly to the guidelines. How can I report this attitude properly?

Kind regards UASLab (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@UASLab: Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. Out of curiosity, what does UAS Lab stand for? Is that an organization? Is it UAS Laboratories? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know any uas laboratories, it's a made up name. So, just to agree, you read the talks among the user and me; and you agree with his edits?

If that is the case, I won't argue anymore on the topic.

I just consider quite odd that someone with specific knowledge on a topic can't make it available without being accused of COI. I would have agreed if I had been trashing on other formulations or spammed a particular authors research. On my hand, it was just complements to already published Wikipedia articles. UASLab (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: I understand that vandalism has a specific definition. But I assume that in a sense, discrimination should be against general guidelines for any editorial. UASLab (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@UASLab: So your username doesn't mean anything? You just typed some random characters on a keyboard and that's what came out? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Lab means... Lab but the part of uas doesn't mean anything specific, it was just a general concept. What do you think of my previous comments? I just would really like getting a second opinion on the matter of someone that seems more reasonable. UASLab (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like for you to be honest and transparent about your username, your intentions on WP, and your affiliations with external organizations that are related to your area of editing. Until then, you're probably not going to get a lot of serious attention. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I dependently of the source, I was inquiring if the content I made did not make the article better in itself. I really thought I did, and it being deleted because "belonging to small research groups" seems a bit racist. Especially when considering that the information was already peer-reviewed.

If I rather not disclosure any personal information, is because I don't want to be judged by means of geographical location, race or gender.

My intentions are indeed to support wp with suitable content. I was just starting and had already planned adding information from other sources, when I felt attacked by an user. That's why I'm here I need a clear second opinion on the topic. UASLab (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@UASLab: I honestly don't know much about the situation and haven't looked into it with any depth. I don't know anything about the topic area you're writing in, or the sources you're trying to insert into articles. I would caution you that the word "racist" has a specific definition, and I have seen no evidence that anyone is treating you or your edits differently because of your perceived race/ethnicity, or the race/ethnicity of the authors of the source you're trying to add to multiple articles. If you have any evidence that this has occurred, please show it to me and I'll immediately and permanently block any editor that is displaying racist behavior. Otherwise, if you don't have evidence, I'd urge you to leave the baseless accusations of racism out of this, because they're not going to help the situation.

The reason I'm asking about your background and your affiliations is because your account is showing problematic patterns. Firstly, your account is very new, but somehow you're already well-versed in relatively advanced things like citing references. This suggests that this might not be your first WP account, which further suggests that previous accounts of yours have already been blocked for problematic behavior. That may not be true, but the evidence is suggestive. Secondly, you seem to have a clear agenda. For some reason, you're attempting to insert the same exact source into multiple articles. Is there a reason that you're trying to do this? Are you trying to publicize this source or otherwise draw attention to it? Are you an author of the source, or somehow affiliated with the author(s)? All of these are natural questions to ask when a brand new editor starts trying to inexplicably jam the same source into multiple articles.

WP is an encyclopedia; a place where neutral knowledge is collected and documented. It is not a place to push your agenda or publicize your research. Your behavior makes other editors suspicious that you are here to push your agenda rather than to help build an encyclopedia. Until you explain your agenda, you're not going to find a lot of sympathy from other editors. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Pathaan

Hello, Scottywong. Pathan (film) and Pathan (2022 film) were salted as a result of this closure,. However, following an announcement yesterday, the official title is now spelled as Pathaan, and is scheduled for 2023 release. Hence, I've moved the draft to Draft:Pathaan (film). I request you to extended the protection to Pathaan (film) and Pathaan (2023 film) as I don't want this move to be a catalyst in any abusement of the new title. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the article is now back in mainspace as Pathaan (upcoming film) (exact copy of the draft). I tagged it for G4 but it's removed by the creator, and later by an IP (logged out?). -- Ab207 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You have to give them credit for being persistent. Deleted and salted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

2023 Formula One World Championship

Hi,

I was wondering why you removed the creation protection for 2023 Formula One World Championship. I've seen the draft and it is effectively the same as the version that was deleted (just a few additional contracts). The issues raised at the AfD are not adressed by the draft. SSSB (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Honestly, I didn't compare the draft and the deleted version of the article. User:Greenman requested the unprotection at WP:RFPP, saying that there is a draft that he'd like to approve and move there. I saw that he is an experienced editor and trusted his judgment. Now that I've compared the draft and the deleted version of the article, I can see that there are some significant similarities. That's not terribly surprising, given that the draft and the deleted article both cover the same exact subject. But, it's clear that someone saved the deleted version of the article and based the draft on it (which, again, is not necessarily problematic). It's been a couple months since the last article was deleted, which means we're now a couple months closer to this event. Consensus can change, but I'd be interested to hear if Greenman has any thoughts on why the draft should be published now, if it is very similar to the deleted version of the article. Are there any significant differences between them? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for response. As I've explained at the draft page (perhaps a little aggressively in hindsight), no. We only have more of the same (i.e. more contracts which don't relate specifically to that one season. SSSB (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Thanks. Due to the objections from multiple editors regarding the approval of the draft, I've re-protected the article for now. If a consensus emerges that the draft becomes suitable, we can unprotect at that time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll probably be back in the next 0-9 months (depending on when things happen). SSSB (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD close

Hi Scottywong! Did you coordinate at all with Barkeep49 in closing the LGBT list AfD? He tagged it with "Close in progress" about a half hour before your close. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I just left a message on his talk page. I saw the {{closing}} template after I refreshed the page, after closing the discussion. It took me longer than 30 minutes to read through the discussion and close it. I'm happy to revert my close if he'd prefer to close it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I just saw your message there. Glad you're following up on it. Hopefully he'd have come to the same conclusion anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Portland Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon: March 12, 2022

You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Incivility

Don't call someone a "second-class citizen", even if you think it's true. If you keep being uncivil, I'll have to report you to the ANI. If I fail there, I would go to ArbCom. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)