User talk:Craig.Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Craig.Scott)
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Craig.Scott! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- THLCCD 12:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

False allegation by Fang 23 - apology requested[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Fang 23 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not added any "spam" links. Specifically if you are accusing me of adding any "links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product" that is an outright error. I do not have a personal website, I am not "affliated" with any websites and I have no product to promote. Please provide your justification for this hurtful attack on my judgement and motives. By the way, I've been here a lot longer than you have, unless you are a sockpuppet. Craig.Scott 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't even find an article that we have both edited, but I note that your edit summaries often breach Wikipedia:Civility. Craig.Scott 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At first i thought the links you added were spam but it turned out to not be spam sorry for wrongly accusing you of spamming.--Fang 23 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

union categories[edit]

I think that "labor unionists" or "labour unionists" works fine. It includes trade/craft unionists and industrial unionists. It's used in the USA, but it's also used in the UK, in Canada, and in Australia. So it doesn't appear to be US-centric. But anyway, I'm trying to get centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#centralized discussion of category naming, instead of across the many CFDs and user talk pages, as this discussion has bee way too dispersed thus far. If you feel like replying to this message, it would be best to reply over there. Thanks! coelacan — 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to find isolated examples of non-U.S. usage, but it is simply a fact that it is mainly a U.S. term and it is most certainly U.S. centric. Craig.Scott 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The ends justify the means[edit]

What do you make of this article? Don't the examples seem a bit overly point of view?--Dr who1975 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the example used to one that is less politically charged so you may have to check the history to see what I was talking about. What should I do if there is contention?--Dr who1975 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PGA Championship[edit]

You are updating timelines but not the best finish in the infobox, please add it in the infobox also.

michfan2123 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see that info taken out of the infoboxes, to return them to the smaller neater form they had before. Like many infoboxes on Wikipedia, they are too big in relation to the size of the articles, and repeat too high a proportion of the information in the article for little or no benefit. Craig.Scott 11:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They are fine, they are in many articles and nobody has said anything, the more information the better, it doesn't take up that much space.

michfan2123 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have said something. Infoboxes are too large across many areas of Wikipedia. This section of these infoboxes does not provide any additional information, they just duplicate it in a messy way. I'm not going to contribute to the updating of major championship results if I am also expected to participate in this folly. Craig.Scott 14:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)