This user is proudly American of Croatian and German descent... :)
This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library
This user uses HotCat to work with categories.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.

User talk:Scalhotrod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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
  • These days I'm mostly sticking to work on Sandbox ideas and articles as well as patrolling the Pending Edits list page.


Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech[edit]

/does a happy dance[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.192.231.47  ;)

To answer your Q from a while back: I don't know if the issue had been printed. But some folks (not me) had gotten their hands on it. And as can be seen, Athanatophobos' PDS wasn't photoshopped. But what is there to say in a case like that? (That's not meant in a snarky way) People like Dismas will argue against it until they either have the issue in their own hands or it's being proclaimed on a site they trust. Mind, I understand that having sources is an absolute necessity for a encyclopedia. 93.192.228.150 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey 93.192.228.150, I get your point, but something I learned long ago on this site, "verifiability trumps the truth" every time. Pre-production or release examples exist of a great many things, but if we are going to use them as sourcing (especially web based) we have to take into consideration link rot. It's a minor issue, but once printed the issues will exist in perpetuity. We have this same problem in the movie and television articles when pre-production information gets leaked before release or airing and worse yet, changes. It's kind of hard for anyone (including the anti-porn crowd) to dispute a print issue in wide distribution... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

Leonard Nimoy[edit]

The 2 edits I thanked you for (add Death subheading and move wikisource box) were exactly what I was about to do. Face-smile.svg220 of Borg 02:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on other Bio articles I've worked on, it made sense and was in keeping with article norms.

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol[edit]

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol, I'd like you to know that I did not appreciate these two edits or edit summaries:

  • 00:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: Please gain consensus or participate in Talk page discussion before adding this back, WP:BRD
  • 01:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: LB, please be reasonable... and comment in post: Please, I'm happy to start an RfC or ask for a 3rd party opinion or whatever, but please don't leave me any other choice but to seek the assistance of an Admin or a formal process.

On the first diff:

  • First off, you identify yourself[1] as an inclusionist.
  • Second, you had never edited that article before I started editing it on 26 February 2015.
  • Third, among other edits, I added Assault weapon to that article's "See also" list (hardly a "bold" edit).[2]
  • Fourth, less than three hours after I started editing the article, you showed up and performed one of your deceptive, content removing "Clean up" edits,[3] removing what I'd added.
  • Third, after YOU reverted my addition - a second time[4] - I started the discussion about it.[5] (You should have started a discussion about it after your first revert.)
  • Fourth, I gave very convincing reasons why that item should stay. (1. Some semi-automatic pistols are considered assault pistols, and 2. WP:ALSO enables readers to explore tangentially related topics.)[6]
  • Fifth, your reason is your opinion, based on no policy or guideline.

On the second diff? "Please be reasonable" is the same as saying "You're being unreasonable." It's just plain condescending and not AGF. Also, that's at least twice now since our topic ban ended that you've threatened me with "admin assistance." Your hands are not clean in this dispute.

I'm returning to that article now, and if you don't like "assault weapon" in the "See also" section, then yes, I think we should try WP:NPOVN or some other process. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey LB, from what I understand, you just had some kind of medical procedure and you just came off of a 24 hour block, so understandably you might not be in the best of spirits. None of this stuff is a "life or death" matter so let me know when you feel like discussing it again. Take care, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL projects[edit]

About this edit: [7]. If you'll notice, the ones who added the projects were myself[8] and an IP.[9] (I actually created the article, along with Darknipples. Not that she or I own it, but it helps to understand it development, as well as the history of the talk page.) Further, most projects allow anyone to assess articles, based on whatever the project's assessment criteria is. And according to WP:GUNS, "Firearms related legislation, court cases, organizations, and competitive events" are of low importance. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine for now, the entire classification system needs to be re-addressed because it was intended for technical articles about firearms, not politics. So it doesn't really matter what is says for the time being. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Threading[edit]

Friendly suggestion: I don't know if you've always done this, or if you're just doing it lately, but I think it's something you should think about changing... or at least make use of Template:Outdent. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope your recovery is going well and that you feel better soon. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not recovering from anything. Montanabw is (or was). Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun politics task force (GPTF)[edit]

I see that you've proposed a gun politics task force (GPTF) on Rezin's talk page, and even started a new page for it under WP:GUNS. Considering that "firearms related legislation and court cases" are rated "Low" on WP:GUN's Importance scale, but politics are important at WP:POLITICS, I'd think a task force there (the politics project) would be a better idea, or as Rezin suggested,[10] consider a joint task force.

Questions:

  • You're basing the GPTF on the gender gap task force. Do you think there is a gun-politics bias on Wikipedia?
  • Would this be a global gun politics task force, or a U.S. gun politics task force?
  • Would the task force have a position on international arms control? On domestic gun control? (For instance, would the task force enforce the view the gun control is arms control?)
  • Would the task force work to keep "politics" out of gun articles? (As you're currently doing at Firearms.[11][12] And at Semi-automatic firarm,[13] Semi-automatic pistol,[14][15][16] Semi-automatic rifle,[17] and Semi-automatic shotgun,[18] where you've been removing Assault weapon from the See also section against WP:ALSO.)
  • Would the task force work to protect the "right to keep and bear arms" as a basic, civil, or god-given right as some gun rights advocates like to say? Would RKBA material be added to every gun/gun politics article?

I have to say I'm a bit concerned because you have professed on-wiki that you are pro gun[19] and also that you'd like to be an admin someday.[20] (And you broke our GC topic ban several times, most notably, here.) From a year - maybe more? - of working with you and seeing your work, I know that if you start a task force, it's likely to lean pro-gun. I think any outsider looking at the same situation might come to the same conclusion, and I'm pretty sure you would be alarmed if I started a GPTF.

I think if you really want to do this, you should start a discussion on the project page and invite other projects - especially WP:POLITICS and WP:LAW to join in. Lightbreather (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting idea. Would I be able to join/apply? Darknipples (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: @Cullen328: Let me try to be as clear as I can, the Firearm Project mission, scope, and span of articles is technical and historical in nature. From its earliest days, to its spin off, the purpose and intention behind it has been the scholarly expansion and improvement of articles about the devices themselves. It took me a while to fully appreciate this, but the core of the Project membership, those that are former and/or current Military History Project members, are interested in that as well.

Then a few well intentioned Editors came along (myself included) and started editing articles like Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and National Rifle Association. Things were cordial and collegial at first, but as with most discussions that involve politics, passionate discourse and spirited debate have become vitriolic walls of text laden with passive-aggressive jabs and mean-spirited edit summaries.

The GPTF is just a framework, a new "file folder" of sorts, a place to compartmentalize any scholarly non-technical/historical articles relating to firearms, plain and simple.

DN, you are welcome to participate, but the setup of a template is a fairly cut and dry process. Once its setup, the Task Force and those who choose to specifically be a part of it can manage it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ching chong[edit]

Hi there,

This is a courtesy notice that I undid your removal of the section Modern incidents from Ching chong. While I agree the section has gotten unwieldy and is in need of editing, the article does benefit from having something about its modern usage. I'll start off with some removal of the less notable incidents. Let me know if you have ideas on how to fix the section. Transcendence (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Twitter links almost never belong in articles[edit]

Per WP:NOTLINKS, WP:EL (WP:ELNO#10 and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL), and WP:Twitter. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

*, I already know and understand that you are not familiar with the norms of how WP:PORNBIO articles are maintained, its not necessary to re-iterate it, but thank you for the note. Have a nice day! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So you think all PORNBIO-related articles are exempt from our policies and guidelines? Your previous arguments indicated you were following our policies and not making an exception. At this point, I think it best for you to point to others' agreement and consensus on whatever exceptions PORNBIO-related articles may or may not have.
In the meantime, I hope you can understand that the burden is on you to convince others that the link belongs per WP:ELBURDEN, so you will not edit-war further over them but wait until you've convinced others. Perhaps you should go to WP:ELN at this point. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ronz, I'll give you some more time to figure out what you want to say and how you want to say it. That was a significant text change between those edits, please take your time and compose yourself. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Do try to WP:FOC --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not know about that page, but it was entirely the intention behind my comment. There's no rush, please take your time, and respond at your convenience. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You didn't know about WP:DR? That explains a lot. Do try to follow it. As you'll note, I've already suggested ELN. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ronz, yes, I know about WP:DR, but I don't hang out there. I was referencing your specific link to WP:FOC. Hey, if you don't want to take your own advice [21][22], fine by me. But going after the articles of the most famous porn stars doesn't insult me in the slightest. It will, more than likely, get the attention of other Editors who do not care for Users that make edits based on their personal interpretation of policy and then try to hide behind it. We've been there and done that in the Porn Project and have the precedent of Topic bans and blocks of Editors doing this to show for it. So as you said, do try to WP:FOC. I'm off to run errands, have a nice day! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Anytime you want to steer me to focusing on content, please do. However, those diffs aren't relevant in any way.
"It will, more than likely, get the attention of other Editors who do not care for Users that make edits based on their personal interpretation of policy and then try to hide behind it. " Are you describing yourself? I'm applying my understanding of our policies. You assert that there are some exceptions that you are following, but the assertion is without substance at this point despite my requests for clarification.
As for the assumption that I might want to insult you, I'm sorry if I've done anything to give you that impression. If you'd like to point out exactly what I have written, I will refactor. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

Reversion of source removal[edit]

The source no longer pertains to the content, as it was added supposedly to source the inclusion of certain characters in the show; however, the source was referring to the tie-in games, not the series, and thus has no relevance to the TV show article, hence why I've been trying to remove it. Also, the second edit was to fix grammatical errors on a different part of the page. Please stop reverting these changes. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

136.181.195.25, OK - This came up for review on the Special:PendingChanges list and sometimes edits a blended together without any notation. Thanks for explaining the situation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Removed it one last time. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Playboy Playmates of 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Playboy Playmates of 2014. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, your Wiki-etiquette really leave something to be desired. There have been discussions going back almost a year that you could have linked me to. Granted, there's little consensus and some seem to contradict Policy, but that's no excuse for your demeanor. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It kind of makes a HUGE difference. It changes things from the perception of some Editor "on a unilateral mission" to at least some understanding that others have weighed in on the subject. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You, of course, could have simply respected the polcies and guidelines I already identified for you. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Policies and their application are misinterpreted and misapplied all the time, you provided no evidence that you "were not a solitary kook on a mission". This entire community is consensus based, so things change and/or are redefined on a regular basis. You're stance of "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't speak highly of desire for civil discourse. The template you posted above after a single change is an indication of that. The only way for someone to perceive that you are "taking the high road" is for you to actually do it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, plain and simple, if its truly the consensus of the community that Twitter links you've been removing from articles are not acceptable and the broad application of your interpretation of the Policy is correct, heck, I'll start helping out with the removal and probably never use the template again. I may even start another discussion as to why the template exists if its existence promotes its misuse.

Had you taken a different tact, quite simply your words and views would have more credibility with me, hence why I started the ANI just to get more eyes on the subject other than the few who have commented on the External Links talk page. I'm off the run errands now. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"you provided no evidence" Simply untrue. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian[edit]

Could you give me more explanation on why you reverted all of my edits to the Dan Bilzerian article? For example, I recognize there has been some back and forth on his talk page about him being (or not being) a legitimate actor, but he is currently listed (fairly high up) among the credits of a Bruce Willis movie now filming. I added that to his acting section and you reverted that. Why? Also, I attempted to fill out the description of him in the intro beyond simply "an American internet social media subject," which is a vague description that doesn't serve the Wiki reader very well, IMHO. Is there something more specific you feel could be used as a description? Thanks. JNorman704 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi JNorman704, first off if I have been reverting "all of [your] edits to the Dan Bilzerian article", its absolutely nothing personal and my apologies if it seems that way. This article comes up on the Special:PendingChanges list quite often and as a result its on my Watch list too. As you noted, "there has been some back and forth", but its not just limited to the Talk page. There has been quite a bit of Edit warring in the article plus several accusations that have resulted in Edit and Edit Summary deletions by an Admin.
I realize that the guy is subject to controversy and probably has as many detractors as he does fans, but that doesn't mean his article should be full of inaccuracies, fluff, or WP:UNDUE criticism. That said, your most recent edit looked a bit "PR-ish. Plus your edit contained collectively a variety of information that has been in the article previously, and been edit warred over. Assuming your efforts were sincere, given the the article's recent history it looked like "yet another Bilzerian fan" trying to make him look good on WP. We can discuss all of it on the Talk page to reach consensus about what and how to add the content. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Brandi Love[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brandi Love. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[23] [24] --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayyan (model)[edit]

Hi, i did an edit on this page Ayyan (model) which you reverted, what was the reason? It was perfectly referenced and formatted. Why the revert? You can answer either here or a the talk page of the article (I have created a subsection) Sohebbasharat (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now I have seen it, it was already mentioned in the personal life subsection. My bad. I did not see that. Sorry for bothering. Sohebbasharat (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thank you for your note. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If you are referring to this edit[25], because of the previous edit, your addition equated to moving previous content from the Personal life section to its own, separate section. That was unnecessary as it created effectively a "controversy section" which is contrary to the WP:MOS. The content is currently part of this section Ayyan_(model)#Personal_life. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah got it, I actually wrote that without knowing that it was already in the Personal life section. Sorry. Thanx Sohebbasharat (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sue Rangell[edit]

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I tend to write to much an repeat my self. Always been forgetful. At gets worse with age. Just turned 68.

I was looking for what content can be in user space. My concern is sort of POV related. All valid views. But is a topic that is used in several separate areas.

Formal grammar is most commonly a production grammar. And in many text books on programming language construction "A formal language is defined by a formal grammar". To day that is mostly true on the surface.

Early metacompilers in their documentation said they use a reduction grammars. Seams here reduction grammars are analytical grammars. I found reduction grammar in McGraw-Hill technical term dictionary but analytical doesn't show up. That is not the issue.

The mathematical, computer science, and linguistics view are all valid POVs. My argument is that formal grammar should start off with a general description. Researching the topic I found linguist papers based in reduction grammars.

In some old metacompiler documentation they describe their language as a formal grammer. A metacompiler does define a programming language in its own language. That language is used as a specification language.

I basically put a user manual together for a matacompiler in my personal space to use in explaining a reduction language. Why I think they should be important. At least historical.

The short of this is: Is that a valid use? I found the essay use and looking at the essay list. Sue's essay on POV cought my attention. Where does one find specifics on all of this wiki etiquette. Personal space use etc.

My personal space on Schorre matalanguages.

Anyways I have been here a while but just recently ventured into editing. Mostly brought on by the metacompiler topic. Software tools having been my professional specialization for most of my working years. I managed the Kontron language development group in Anaheim Calif until they moved to Hayward Calif.

I refrained from editing because of the personal research restriction. But on technology topics first hand knowledge, experience, I think should be acceptable if unbiased and informative.

Steamerandy (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry was editin my post. Checking a spelling and continued. Seams to have caused the loss of some posts. Doing this on a phone so had to close out and come back.

Steamerandy (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Brittany Andrews[edit]

Sorry, I selected the wrong edit when I posted that. I was referring to was the removal of this edit. I apologize for my ignorance I'm trying to read and understand all the rules for posting. but I don't see how this line should not be in the article. Also I know her personally and I was wounder is there a way that I can quote her? I know that everything needs to have a source but I didn't see one to quote a person. Thank you for your quick help, response and understanding.

Also in 2010, Time Out New York featured an interview with her in a story about people who have sex as part of their jobs.[1]

(Bilbobaggs0001 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)) (Bilbobaggs0001 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

References
  1. ^ "Career profiles: Sex workers". Time Out New York Magazine. Time Out Group Limited. August 2010. Retrieved 13 March 2015. 
No worries, I've been on here for several years and I'm learning new things constantly. Its just too vast of a site to know it all... :)
As for the content, it might be better as a source if there something interesting in the interview. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2[edit]

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

  • Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
  • WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]

.

Tommy_Robinson_(activist)[edit]

Hello - can you explain why you didn't like the proposed changes to the criminal record section for this entry? Thanks! 86.174.193.10 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if your edits were in earnest, some times the Special:PendingChanges function gathers edits together which makes it difficult to discern which are productive or not. Your net edits left an orphan section "Criminal record (old)" which had no content. If I interrupted your edits while in progress, my apologies as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avy Scott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belladonna (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) 08:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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…
38 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: Stub AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
75 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Saad Al-Salim Al-Sabah (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
134 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
1,522 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C WrestleMania 29 (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
26 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Qamar-ud-din Khan, Asif Jah I (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
1,171 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Damien Sandow (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
35 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Demographics of Hyderabad (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
85 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Near West Side, Chicago (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start 2011 Formula Renault 2.0 NEC season (talk) 2.0 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
164 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA FYI (U.S. TV channel) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
1,766 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: FA Mark Henry (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expand
162 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B English football clubs in international competition (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expand
402 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Magical objects in Harry Potter (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
3,195 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA José Mourinho (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
207 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: A Alberto Aquilani (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
78 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Lego Harry Potter (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
62 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Holika Dahan (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
108 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Hyderabadi biriyani (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
310 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: C European association football club records (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
1,628 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: C Brad Pitt filmography (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
221 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: B National Football League Rookie of the Year Award (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 2.0 Wikify
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start 2011 in UEFA (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Afzalabad, Zahedan (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
1 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Alvircept sudotox (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
622 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub London Fields (film) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
18 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Arab Academy of Damascus (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
45 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ferrari F1-2000 (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
20 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Amrithadhare (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
54 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Detail (record producer) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
38 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Ferrari F300 (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 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) 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Super Mario and links to "high fantasy"[edit]

Is there a reason why you have now accepted two separate edits (both of which have now been reverted) to add a link to High fantasy in the lead section of Super Mario? Previous consensus has led to that term not being added to describe the video game series. If you believe otherwise, it would probably be best to discuss on the article's talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, it keeps coming up on the Special:PendingChanges list, that's the only reason for my interaction. When I clicked the link and read the explanation, it seemed to apply. If there was concensus not to use the term, my apologies, I simply did not know about the conversation. It seems to be the same User, so someone should probably address that person directly. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Scalhotrod, just wanted to let you know that I responded to your response on my talk page, in the event that the Ping didn't work. Hope the diffs I provided display the discussions that have been happening over the course of the last 6 months. (By the way, I'm WP:AGF'ing as well, even though my tone might not have been clear in my response since all I did was provide diffs.) Face-smile.svg Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Critical Systems Inc.[edit]

this company needs better PR, plain and simple. Wikipedia is not for business listings

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.

Hi Dear, I was trying to create article about this company namely Critical Systems Inc. but not getting good response so what should i do? Is it possible for you to create article about this company? Regards Show-reality (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Show-reality, try posting it here Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies#C. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, Thanks for your reply. I have posted there and you accept it but i also have created the draft for this Draft: Critical Systems Inc. Please check. Show-reality (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Show-reality, I don't see any independent sources such as news stories in the links you provided. Nothing that demonstrates any Notability as far as Wikipedia in concerned. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was told to offer you more possible notable links for Critical Systems Inc. Hope i'm doing this the right way:

Tyankee (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)tyankee


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 – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

Creating Page for an Advertising Agency[edit]

Hi Dear can you please suggest me if i or you can create Article about an advertising agency called Forza Migliozzi. Thank You Singh 04:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.sahota (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

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.

List of Playboy Playmates of 2011 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to MMA and 7th Heaven
List of Playboy Playmates of 2012 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Horror and The Gambler

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)