User talk:ScrapIronIV

Civil discourse is welcome.

ScrapIronIV, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ScrapIronIV! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation (to work)

Hello ScrapIronIV, I have noticed that you are concerned about Waverley Line. You are cordially invited to constructively contribute to User:KlausFoehl/Borders Railway‎ if you wish so. If you prefer to keep working on Waverley Line, I'll be happy about that as well.--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft

Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Climate Change Discretionary Sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. jps (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Holloway

Which part of WP:BRD are you having trouble understanding? Cassianto^Talk 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The part where you and your buddies own the article, and consistently choose to be wrong. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that under that essay. So you appear to be both disruptive and stupid. Cassianto^Talk 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Stanley Holloway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cassianto^Talk 13:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than throw spurious ownership claims, perhaps, as per my edit summary, you could try to civilly discuss things on the talk page, rather than engage in a knee-jerk edit war. That would be a much more constructive path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. I know you both; I have seen your work, and your appearances on the drama boards. You write good articles, and deserve proper respect for that. But you do not choose to communicate, civilly or otherwise. You tagteam to get your way, and it is tiresome. I am done with children for a while. Keep your little playground. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Still uncivil, I see. If you decide not to take part in consensus-building discussions on a consensus-driven project, that is entirely up to you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I gladly talk with those who listen. As far as civility is concerned, one reaps what one sows. One can be civil on the surface, and a petulant child behind the words. For me, it is much more civil to lecture little the schoolchildren, so that they might grow up to be truly civil in the full meaning of the word. Whether you choose to let that comment to refer to you and your playmates, or not, is entirely up to you. The philosophy of discipline remains unchanged. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We do listen; however, most of the time we are not listened too and, like you correctly point out above, we receive no or little respect. I see you have "seen [our] work"; similarly, you have seen us on the drama boards. This begs the question: have you only warred and been disruptive here to initiate a long and laborious thread at ANI? Cassianto^Talk 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will answer your question with a question: Have you seen me file any requests at AN/I? What did I do the last time we "communicated" here on Holloway? I dropped the issue, looked at it from another perspective, and did not pursue it. In that one conversation, I learned a lot about your approach to the process. While I still think infoboxes are important - largely from a metadata and data mining perspective (allowing greater access to to data for more types of users, one of Wikipedia's stated goals) - it is not worth fighting with you. I have never brought anyone to the boards, except IP's making legal threats. I disagree with your approach to the articles you maintain your "stewardship" but I would not choose to drag my own name through the mud while slinging it at yours. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I try and steer clear of ANI as it's full of self serving and sycophantic arseholes most of the time. In terms of the stewardship; why the hell not? Have you seen the current state of Theatre Royal, Drury Lane? That is a prime example of what happens when the primary editors walk away and leave an FA to rot. Cassianto^Talk 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat that I like the way the articles you have contributed to have ended up, for the most part. You guys are better editors and authors than I am. My problem comes with the way you seem to automatically dismiss others' contributions, and an antagonistic approach to it. It could very well be warranted; this is a contentious place. It took me years before I decided to actually start to edit. It's a nasty place overall, with all kinds of negative personalities. Maybe I haven't given you guys a fair shake - but I felt bitten the one time we interacted. I was feeling that way again this morning. Some things seem simple - and the "birth place" for Holloway seems quite simple to me. It looked like blind reversions, coupled with tag-teaming. So, maybe it isn't, but from an outside view it looked that way. So, I will choose to apologize for my apparent incivility. I hope you will take a moment to try to look at it from my perspective, and maybe see that there there is a kernel of truth in my observation. Not all IP's are bad, and sometimes it may be possible that others' opinions are valid. It's an excellent article overall, and work that the contributors should be justifiably proud of. But maybe a tweak in one spot or another is not unwarranted. Fair enough? ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your praise and I'm honoured that you should find the articles on which I work so engaging (I'm sure Gavin will too). Let me clarify; I didn't and don't have a problem with the edit in general, and I would've been happy to discuss it per WP:BRD on the talk page. My problem was the constant reverting by both yourself and the IP. That is why I bit. I would be happy to consider implementing your edit as, in truth, I find it largely ok. In the body, we have explained that Manor Park was formally in Essex. Is it in the lead section that you would also like it clarified? Personally, I don't think the lead is the place for clarifications within parenthesis as it can become quite cluttered and make for some bumpy reading. I think the best thing is to discuss it, like adults, on the talk page so others can chip in and give their two penn'orth. Is that a worthy compromise? Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Offering eyes

I noticed your request for eyes, regarding Fiat 130 HP. That's a nice looking article, good layout and at-a-glance information, precise short lead with a time. You may want to add a place there for those who don't know Fiat but might argue that they would not be interested in the article anyway. I could do without "true" in "a true champion".

I made minor changes with explanation in the edit summaries. Please replace all "bare urls" by a minimum of title and publisher (as now in the external link), adding date and author where available, and an accessdate if not a book. Happy racing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much; I will try to include your suggestions. I do not yet know how to add an accessdate, but will learn. I had chosen the word "true" because Fiat had not yet had a real winning design before the introduction of the 130 HP - if you know a better way to express that, I am open to suggestions. Perhaps eliminating the word altogether will still convey the idea. I really do appreciate your looking it over! ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"true": Keeping things simple is my personal thing, not a rule ;) - I copied projects from 12 HP which seems a decent model to follow, I also added the new one to the navbox at the bottom (which you can edit by clicking on the little "e" in the upper left corner). I will add today's date as an accessdate to one ref, feel free to copy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you see what I see: if you fix all refs as you started and have one at the end of each paragraph, the article is eligible for the DYK (Did you know?) section of the Main page. I will nominate, you watch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of that - there is still a lot about the workings of Wikipedia that I do not know; I have only recently begun to gain a little confidence and started to edit a bit more. I have certainly made my missteps along the way! I will try to get the rest of the refs fixed tomorrow; I am getting a DNS error on a couple at the moment. I have yard work to do tonight... funny how the real world interferes :-D Thank you again for all of your help! ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, you are doing fine. For DYK, you have a week after creation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda. I have left you some comments on the talk page. Just thread your responses underneath each comment as you go. If you disagree with any of them, don't worry, I won't "bite" :) Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiat 130 HP, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Henry, Bore and Wheels (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) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Fiat 130 HP

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pooja Kumar

You're going to need far better sources than that one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely; let's discuss. I have offered two for the year of birth, and one for actual date. May I ask what will satisfy the requirement? ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

You have reverted my edit on Yahya article, on the ground that name predates ideology. While this might be true in other cases, here it is not. Arabs had two different names, the other variant for John was already in use. Yahya variant came with Islam and with a particular religious etymology (see the comment I left on John the Baptist talkpage). Arabs still have another name for John, unused, but Yahya is an Islamic name, which means it is also a Persian, Indonesian etc. name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This exceptional claim would require a source to back it up. Until that has been provided, the claim can not be restored. ScrapIronIV (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not exceptional claim. If you cared reading the list of names below, on that page, you will see that Persians do use that name. That the name came for the first time in the Qu'ran is known by anyone who know basic Islam. See here: http://islamic-awarness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/yahya.html

You will see on that page, that the name was used specifically to refer to him, there was no such name prior to Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether that is a reliable source, never mind an exceptional source, is something I will leave to others for now. In the meantime, if you wish to discuss it, it belongs on the article's talk page, not on mine. Scr★pIron^IV 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Melee

There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem Editor

I just put an AIV report on the editor. I suspect it to be a sockpuppet of a problem editor based on the terms they keep telling folks to search for (types of fans). User_talk:David_Beals is the problem editor in question; they have a history of spamming pages with ceiling fan pictures. Crboyer (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I can't believe I fell for a fourth reversion. A rookie mistake, but I am a rookie when it cones to vandals. Scr★pIron^IV 04:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson

Hello. I wanted to talk about my recent edits. Regarding my changing him saying, "because he may run," to, "because of the chance that he would run," is that it's no longer correct to say he "may run." Saying he did something because he may run, as far as I can see, makes it sound as if he isn't running yet.

And regarding enlarging his quotation on evolution, could we at least enlarge it to, "Those of us who believe in God and derive our sense of right and wrong and ethics from God’s word really have no difficulty whatsoever defining where our ethics come from. People who believe in survival of the fittest might have more difficulty deriving where their ethics come from. A lot of evolutionists are very ethical people"? It better explains the distinction he makes. Thanks! —The Sackinator (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@The Sackinator: Thank you for the message. Perhaps "because he was considering running" would fit better for both of us. And I see no issue with the quote you have suggested. It is concise, and reads well. Have a great day! Scr★pIron^IV 12:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

All right! That sounds good! —The Sackinator (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Portugal not a democracy?

Excuse me but if Portugal its not a democracy then there arent democracies in Europe. Its a democratic parliamentary republic beyond any doubt. If your concept of democracy doesnt aply to Portugal it does aply to Wikipedia: [1]. Regards.78.29.161.216 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As ScrapIronIV suggests, why don't you read WP:CRYSTAL. Once you have done so, then come back and engage in a discussion. Cassianto^Talk 17:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Pykrete

I'm not sure how you don't believe "notably" isn't editorializing. I'd like to direct your attention to WP:EDITORIAL. "Notably" is the first example given as editorializing. It's editorializing because it's stating an opinion about something without attributing that opinion to someone. Pishcal — ♣ 12:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your pointing that out. I find it interesting that by default, something must be notable to even appear in an encyclopedia. Thus, I see that term as less notable than others might. I have run into similar disagreements over terminology such as "innovative" - both terms are simple and minimally descriptive in definition, with a very narrow focus. Others choose to connote meanings outside of the simple definition. It is all in how each individual reads those words, and the meanings they impart on them from their experience. Personally, I would prefer to keep denotative definitions, as there is no way to fully remove the individual reader's experience from the equation. Trying to do so would make a dry reading indeed. Scr★pIron^IV 13:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In that scenario "notably" isn't referring to the subject of the article, it's referring to a property of the subject. I don't see how looking at "notably" through a denotative definition or a connotative definition changes anything. It's still an impartial tone, and I don't see how saying "including" rather than "notably" detracts from a reader's experience. Pishcal — ♣ 16:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pishcal, the essay - and it is only that, an essay and not a rule - you point to contains the line "should usually be avoided". It is not written in stone and words like "notable" can be used in certain situations. In fact, some featured articles currently use them without little justification. Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, WP:WORDS is a guideline and part of the manual of style. While I agree that it should not be followed to the words, in that scenario there was no reason to not have it, because it was editorializing. I didn't see the text and think "Oh, that's a violation of WP:EDITORIAL", I saw the text and thought, "Oh, that's editorializing." Only when it was reverted did I look for the section of the manual of style that supported my removal of it. Pishcal — ♣ 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Obit

Please read the OBIT. You can also see the Death Certificate. Additional refs. Can we correct that?

Thanks Bob

@Wa3pxx: I would love to read the obituary, and the death certificate. The trouble is that there are multiple competing sources - let's take it to the Talk Page Talk:Henry Lincoln Johnson as there are more editors who would weigh in. In the meantime, do not restore the change again, per WP:BRD the change has been challenged, and we need to discuss it before it goes back in. Scr★pIron^IV 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you refuse to participate in discussing whether content is appropriate, then please refrain from edit-warring over it, as you seem to be doing at Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere. I posted to the Talk pages for both that and the main franchise article with my rationale. If you have rationale for opposing, then please do the same; otherwise, please leave it alone. Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A single reversion is not edit warring. I am more than willing to discuss; in fact, I had previously given my opinion on the talk page, as well as offering direction n where to find resources. I was quite surprised that you had decided to remove your own contributions. The source you had provided, while a non-english and primary source, was supported by blogs and fan sites. This may not be optimal, but it is adequate, particularly considering the subject. We are dealing with a series of video games, not the biography of a hero or the history of a piece of world-changing engineering. The availability of sources is dependent upon the importance of the subject. What we have is probably as good as is available. So, relax a bit, and offer information instead of stressing over it. This is an article about a series of video games on Wikipedia; no one will live or die based upon the inclusion of this trivial information on a trivial subject. Scr★pIron^IV 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Two reversions [2][3], both made without discussing it on Talk where I first proposed the edit you reverted. I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but it’s just frustrating to feel like I’m the only person making an effort to talk rather than just reverting, like I’m posing questions and making proposals only to be met with silent resistance. It’s not just this subject and it’s not just you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I will apologize for not being as communicative as I could have been. I had honestly thought the issue had been settled, and this particular article was not a high priority for me. I believe I only swung by because of a Third Opinion request. I do understand that some other editors have made things more difficult than they need to be. I meant well. The content you had added was valid, and a valuable contribution to the article. I just didn't want to see it lost, and restored it. As I said, it's not perfectly sourced, but reasonably so given the situation. Scr★pIron^IV 13:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

NRA lead

Regarding this edit - [4] - it is your only edit to the NRA article,[5] and you've made zero edits to the talk page.[6] Might I ask, how did you come to make this edit? Lightbreather (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)