User talk:Scottperry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk-page. Please leave any comments you may wish to discuss with me here, and I will be happy to respond.

Speedy deletion nomination of Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. VarunFEB2003 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia to you too. (According to your contributions log, I've been here slightly longer than yourself.) At any rate, please see my reply at Deletion discussion. Of course, we are all learners here. I am looking forward to some answers to my questions as posted there re: this article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Please post any further replies to this conversation at the article for deletion discussion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why you recreated the article with the content "Article deleted as non-notable", apparently to start up a discussion about licensing and Wikipedia mirror sites. I would recommend the help desk, Teahouse, etc. The mainspace is for live articles only. If you objected to the deletion of the article, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place to raise your concerns. Thanks MusikAnimal talk 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi MusikAnimal,
You asked why I thought we might be better off leaving the article in question as a stub rather than as being fully deleted. As I noted on the talk page which you have now also deleted, this was for two reasons:
  1. To make easier reference for the legal department tomorrow.
  2. With the hope that it might reduce Google search links to what appears to me to be a website that is most probably in violation of Wikipedia copyright policy.
Since you have opted to deny my request to leave the stub until tomorrow, I would hope that minimally, tomorrow you might be able to make yourself fully available to help with whatever assistance the legal department may or may not ask for, should they ask for it in their working on this site which appears to me to quite possibly have some copyright issues. As you may know, the legal questions will probably be answered out of London, thus your availability may possibly be found to be helpful during London business hours on the 12th.
Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The gawker-labs thing is pretty interesting, and maybe is a legal issue... mirror sites are nothing uncommon though, and many include the Wikipedia logo. E.g. what the archiving sites (like archive.org)? Once the content is up it's irrevocably released under WP:CC BY-SA. We did our part by deleting it, that's about all we can do. But either way, the article should not be recreated, you can still use other venues to raise your concerns. Your sandbox, anything... MusikAnimal talk 20:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, the Foundation is based in San Francisco, and as far as I know all of the legal team work out of the office MusikAnimal talk 20:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
True, officially they are still based in San Francisco. FYI, still, in my legal dealings with them in the past, I have always had to deal with London and not San Francisco. Will post here how it goes with legal. Hope you might be available if needed. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: Always "amicable" legal dealings, with no legal actions, I might add.
You are aware that it is a trivial matter for the WMF to look at deleted versions of articles if they need to do so, right? --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi NeilN, Of course, they can ultimately accomplish anything they need to do, and have full access to whatever technical or legal levers they need to to accomplish their job. I just like to make their work as easy as possible for them. Rather than adding more difficulty for them, I at least try to minimize the amount of work that they have to do, if I can. That's all. Thanks NeilN, Scott P. (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FYI that notice was created and added by Twinkle so I can't change that. Sorry for leaving a welcome! VarunFEB2003 14:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for pointing that out. I, on the other hand, have never ever been known to quasi-accidentally "talk down" to anyone. (Err.... not!) Scott P. (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary and status of the gawker-lab Wikipedia copyright violation issue: After reporting the apparent WP copyright violation to legal, the site now appears to have been taken down as per: this link. Thanks to all for your assistance. Scott P. (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Scottperry. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Scottperry. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Just saw your comment[edit]

[1]

Note that if you are coordinating off-wiki with a blocked user to make edits to Wikipedia in their stead, you could be seen as engaging in meatpuppetry and facilitating block-evasion.

And while you are technically allowed exchange emails with someone who was not yet banned from using the e-mail service, and whose email address you now know, such behaviour could be seen as encouraging them to abuse the privileges they had not yet been stripped of. Wikipedia editors, blocked or not, are not allowed send harassing or intimidating emails to others using the Wikimedia e-mail service.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that if I were to knowingly participate in whatever "blockworthy behavior" that fellow was engaging in, then I could be blocked too. I didn't actually realize he was being blocked until you posted this. Sorry. Was he being blocked for his participation in the Trump Inauguration page? That is what we discussed. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: If so, then doubly thanks.
On second thought, I will look it up. This is the first time such a question, regarding working between a blocked user and a non-blocked one, has ever come up for me, but I take "blockworthy behavior," especially when it involves intentional deception for the purposes of gaming the system, as pretty messed up. Again, thanks. Scott P. (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The relevant policy is Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors. Basically, if you use your judgement to determine that material that was sent to you by a blocked editor belongs in an article, and your judgement is in accordance with policies and guidelines, then it is generally acceptable, but you need to be able to defend the edits on your own terms without consulting off-wiki with the blocked user. (This also applies to users who aren't blocked but are banned from making particular edits for whatever reason.) I have no idea why the user in question was blocked (my first interaction with them, as far as I know) was the email they sent me. I'm assuming you had previous contact with the user in question before their block, and their email was not out of the blue. If a blocked user emails you out of the blue, it is generally a good idea to notify the blocking admin, as this is normally an abuse of the email service. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that info on the policy on info handling from blocked editors. True, well cited duly notable material should stand on its own, regardless of who is or is not blocked. Still, personally I would not normally take suggestions from someone who has been topic blocked, unles it was "Watergate caliber" material. I consider the maintenance of the Wikipedia process that important.
This guy was blocked from editing any articles on American politics around Jan. 15, and he emailed me re: the Trump Inauguration article suggested edits just yesterday. I wrote on his talk page that I considered his not informing me of his block in his email to have "gotten me out of sorts." The guy needs to respect the WP system. I'm going to watch his subsequent behavior on this. If he continues to be disruptive, I will recommend that his blocks be increased accordingly. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Scott P. (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Fine. Then I will have the conversation out in the open. There was no reason for you to make threats. The research I provided you is compelling enough to act on independent of my suggestions, and I never asked you to evade anything for my sake or in the name of some conspiracy, as you implied. If I had made you aware of my limitations, you could have complained about being complicit! Anonymity exists for reason. Do not report those emails as they are considered private communication, otherwise you will be held liable for outing, a serious offense. All I am asking you is to consider that research not for my sake but out of respect for the facts to combat the opposition research violating those articles. Please reinstate those edits as I have requested immediately on the Trump Inauguration page. Otherwise an AE may be in order to hold your accountable for gaming the system- you are using your public complaints on your talk page and mine in a way that might unfairly influence administration regarding other matters that do not involve you, and to support contributions on that article that clearly need to be corrected. If you truly thought I had wronged you, you could've made those complaints in private or at the appropriate places. Consider this your only warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.247.172 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'n not planning on reporting anything to anyone. All I ask, is if you get banned from a topic, please don't try to get me to do your edits for you, most especially without even telling me you've been banned. Otherwise things like what just happened are likely to recurr. Yes good cites should always be the final word in my opinion, but if you're going to ask other editors to stick their necks out for you, you at least owe them the courtesy of first letting them know that they're sticking their necks out for you. Personally, while I think WP may be one of the lynchpins that helps to stop the rise of "Trumpist-post-factualism," I don't think we serve anyone by getting so worked up about it that we step over each other's toes. Scott P. (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Hello, Scottperry. When you changed Alternative press from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Alternative press" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. No prob. Thanks for the heads up. Scott P. (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a significant problem. Even before I created the disambiguation page, which was badly needed, I've counted that there were over 500 double redirects, due to the fact that many articles were erroneously linked to the phrase, "Alternative press," when they should then have been linked to the phrase, "Alternative Press," with its slightly different capitalization. Now there are over 3,000 double redirects.
What a mess! This all started when the magazine itself decided to try to capitalize on a slightly incorrect title for itself, and then when WP didn't initially bother to properly title the magazine's article in Wikipedia as, "Alternative Press (music magazine)," as it should have. I'm going to inquire around to see if there are any automated tools for fixing all of these thousands of double redirects. If there are no automated tools for this, I'm only going to fix the first 50 of them, and we will all have to simply fix the rest of them as we stumble upon them over time. Without the assistance of an automated tool for this, unfortunately I just don't have the time for it.
Scott P. (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Bots normally bypass all double redirects within a day or so. What bots can't do is decide whether the original link was pointing to the correct article. If such a link now points to a dab page, editors touching the source article are made aware of the ambiguity before saving. Even if you don't fix them all, things will eventually get sorted out. AWB for Windows or its in-browser clone JWB are useful tools to perform repetitive changes on many pages (in case you're not aware of them yet). — JFG talk 19:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethical Journalism for deletion[edit]

The article that you created, Ethical Journalism, has been nominated for deletion. FourViolas (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump and Ethical Journalism[edit]

Here are my responses to your thoughtful questions and comments...

Why do you feel that Trump's claim that the American media (an essential component of a functional democracy) is no longer "healthy" (is now sick) is not a significant enough claim to in some way warrant its own article?

I'm not sure I have a strong opinion either way on that question. Current consensus seems to be that this topic is important enough to justify the section at Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Relationship_with_the_media. If the size of that section doubles or triples, or the article gets stuffed full of content on other topics, then it's likely that section would be spun out into its own article. Unless in retrospect what it's covering seems unimportant. To a large degree, coverage here depends on whether or not any there are any further significant developments on this topic. I would expect the title of that article to be something like "Donald Trump's relationship with news media" which is a much clearer description of the scope of the article than the very broad topic of "ethical journalism" which encompasses one aspect of journalism but throughout the entire world and all of history. The general health of the American media is an interesting political issue perhaps worthy of its own article, but Trump's opinion is only a small part of that long debate and might or might not be worth mentioning. Maybe that sort of thing belongs more on a debate site than in an encyclopedia, but I haven't really yet found a good one that seems like is has critical mass to stick around for a long time.

If Trump were correct in this, then wouldn't that mean that American democracy is now in significant danger of failure, and wouldn't the potential failure of American democracy be a significant enough topic to warrant its own article (though not necessarily under the title of "Ethical Journalism")?

Trump says a lot of things that if true would mean American democracy was in significant danger of failure, or on the brink of economic collapse, or the verge of war, or being overrun. Much of what he says is exaggerated or blatantly untrue, and being president of the United States doesn't make such statements any truer. Fake news certainly undermines the informedness of the public, though many Americans have been ill-informed throughout the country's entire history, as there have always been unreliable sources of information. Is there any evidence that things are actually particularly worse now than 5 years ago? Than 50 years ago?

I fear that if we might prove to be too fearful to attempt to fairly address this question here in a format that attempts to offer reasonably unbiased answers to the public, such as Wikipedia, and in an article that specifically focuses on this one question, then other media such as the traditional news outlets which have already been vigorously attacked, may be unable to satisfactorily answer it either. Should these attacks against traditional American journalism itself, somehow succeed, do you honestly believe that we at Wikipedia would then somehow miraculously be immune from the next wave of attacks, should we ever publish anything that the POTUS might disagree with?

There are certainly legitimate problems in the relationship between the mass media and President Trump, in particular a distressing breakdown in communication between the White House and the mainstream press which interferes with the public being well-informed. Part of that is certainly that some reporters getting skipped for questions and getting kicked out of briefings. I think a bigger part of that is the Press Secretary getting up at the front of the room, defending lies, and not sharing a lot of pertinent information. I think the party that hurts the most is Donald Trump; when you put a magnifying glass - or a TV news camera - up to that sort of behavior, it's not the media that ends up looking bad. Nor has it made those media any less willing to cover the latest Trump controversy or foul-up or misbehavior or policy announcement or photo op. Far from it, American news media is experiencing a surge in audience as people want to know what it is Trump did today, what outrageous things have been said, what part of it is true, and what it all means. Reporters and outlets spurned by the President just become all that more motivated to dig deep into the administration and look for problems, and they become heroes to Trump opponents. The executive branch is experiencing a lot of unfavorable leaks, and the president has shown virtually no ability to suppress unfavorable information, even on important matters (remember the resignation of Michael T. Flynn?). Established, well-respected outlets like the New York Times continue to put out well-researched pieces, and have the First Amendment and a muscular judiciary to enforce it (a judiciary which has shown no hesitation to successfully block Trump's executive orders, just as with any other president). BuzzFeed continues its defense of democracy with trashy pop-culture listicles I never read.
In short, the American press does not need Wikipedia to defend it from attack; it's more than capable of doing that itself and is thriving. I'm sure if Donald Trump starts blasting Wikipedia, the vast majority of people with either roll their eyes, or say, "I know, right" and go on with their lives. He has virtually no power to prevent either institution from publishing as usual, other than suing for libel like any other person disgruntled about their biography. If you're worried about that sort of thing happening, the best defense is to donate money to a free-speech charity like the ACLU, or press-specific charities like Reporters Without Borders or Committee to Protect Journalists, or support a trusted source by donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, National Public Radio, or ProPublica, or buying a subscription to the New York Times or your local paper. (I do some of those things myself; I am certainly no advocate of apathy and inaction.)
The Washington Times was founded by a cult leader who claimed to be a messiah; doesn't sound like the most reliable source. The editorial which you cite I think is a bit hyperbolic. It is essentially claiming that "responsible journalism" is dead because the press is biased against Donald Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton. Meh. That's not a surprising thing for a conservative paper like the Times to say, nor would it be surprising for a liberal paper to say the same thing because the media is biased against Hillary Clinton. Nor is it surprising for someone who has done awful things to complain about the press making them look bad when what they have done is reported objectively. (And Trump has done things even his supporters don't like, and his approval ratings are remarkably low.) The debate over media favoritism has been raging since the printing press was invented, and you can read all about it in the article media bias.

regarding your comments that you do agree that perhaps there could somehow be more in Wikipedia about exactly what is going on between the Press and Trump, what information specifically could be added to the Presidency of Donald Trump#Relationship with the media article, to help balance it?

Exactly what I wrote on the AFD page - what is Trump saying the media got wrong, and what do the media think of those accusations? Anyone who has ever attended an event and then read about it in the press later can tell you media reports can get things wrong. If there have been any notable erroneous reports about Donald Trump, it's only fair to him and his supporters to point out any legitimate criticisms. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if some specific instances where Trump accuses the media of being dishonest are provably and objectively accurate reports, and it speaks to the credibility of the news media to point out instances of unfair criticism. That section currently doesn't even have the press or any of its supporters claiming that Donald Trump's opinion is in any way inaccurate, and that seems like a major omission given a lot of people are strongly of that opinion.
It might help to consider readers from other countries who know very little about Donald Trump or American politics, or readers of the distant future who haven't been born yet. In the United States of the 2010s, is there a heavily biased press controlled by powerful liberal interests allied against a conservative populist underdog president? Is the American President a dictator who throws opposition journalists in jail? Is the American press a failure of capitalism, overrun by fake news just chasing clicks? Do the American people agree that the media are generally dishonest? Or is Trump just manipulating the media by saying outrageous things to get more attention? It would be nice if Wikipedia had enough detail to answer all of those questions reasonably accurately, though several of those could probably be better answered by links to articles which cover those topics in general and not just in the context of Trump's comments. For example, Media bias in the United States has plenty of quantitative information on that particular topic.
-- Beland (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Closure of AfD discussion[edit]

Courtesy note: I closed the AfD as a redirect to Journalism ethics and standards, given your agreement in the discussion. Good day, — JFG talk 18:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG (@JFG:), Thank you for this. Changing to a redirect will require modification of Template-space. I would be happy to help with some, all or none of the work that will be required. Please let me know if I could be of any assistance. Scott P. (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Which template(s) are affected? — JFG talk 19:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Rainbow Tribe for deletion[edit]

Fine with me. Scott P. (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

8 May[edit]

Scott mate, you have done a few reverts, Here [2] and here [3] and then a few little ones like this. [4] Maybe over 3 all up. Just saying, but someone else may report you SaintAviator lets talk 21:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi. I see you have been editing for a long time here--longer than I. You raised good concerns on Jimbo's page. Have you raised these objections earlier? I don't think the problems you refer to are anything new, and others like myself have raised them before, and they seem to be getting worse. Again, I'm glad you raised those concerns, but I wish you would tone it down a little or the editors you are directly/indirectly accusing will certainly use the diffs to punish you for shedding light on the issues you raise and silence you, and then we have one less productive editor. I feel like you are not seeing that there are editors left like myself that are indeed concerned about this, and there are others who are not and are happy to admit it, right before they take you to AN/I and say the reason they are silencing you is because you are calling them names. Please don't help them silence the valid concerns you raise. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I apologize, but I have raised some of this discussion before, but always been duly squelched via what I have somewhat crassly called EGB. If you would like to volunteer to be the one to enter into a private email discussion with me on this, I think they would probably be somewhat relieved. No transcript release unless by mutual consent. Interested? Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why it has to be off-Wiki? I'm not comfortable with an off-Wiki email discussion at this point. If you want to send me something via email you can, and I promise not to report it here. But at this point, I can't promise to respond, but I will listen to whatever you have to say that you might find uncomfortable expressing on-Wiki. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you kindly David, I will email you, then you decidemfrom there whether or not to reply. Very much appreciated. I am hoping you may see what I mean about this potentially being a model for better dispute resolution here. Email now being composed. Will notify via ygm once sent. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to understand a mindset over the internet, but I think you've gotten a bit too exasperated with this Putin thing. I mean, I can't even figure out why you brought in that story about drone strikes from The Intercept, let alone bragged about solving the edit war on Jimbo's page before it was over. (Ending edit wars is indeed an accomplishment -- one distinguished by its rarity!) And all this high-profile carrying on about the other editors rarely ends well. I don't think Chirurg was right in deleting the version I came up with, obviously, but you have to try to do your best in this kind of situation and not be impulsive. The article is not a total whitewash - we do mention the Litvinenko and Politkovskaya cases right there in the text - so there is no reason why progress should be viewed as impossible.
One thing to look for when tempers flare is bad organization. The lede that people are arguing over was badly organized - it goes from economy to democracy and corruptions perception, then puts one small paragraph about Putin being seen as a strong leader, man of the year etc. I think the misplaced paragraph break - and some deeper issues within that text - made it harder to see how to add this stuff. When an article is brought to its best possible structure, the room for subjective disputes is reduced. That might be a productive way to look at options for further editing there. Also, don't get *that* obsessed by trying to win the lede - the lede is showy, but the readers who actually matter are the ones who devour every last detail out of the text. Wnt (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I should add a couple of things about the article while it's protected. I appreciate that you have as much right to add content as they have to take it out... but as a tactical matter, I suggest not going straight back to this edit war the moment the article comes out from protection. Because then a) you risk getting dragged into arbitration etc. and b) the same admin will probably protect it for a month, foiling other attempts to set things right. There is no merit in getting into a knock-down-drag-out with a couple of other editors on that article, because either they are shills, in which case getting a real editor shut down just in order to have the shill get the same (perhaps) and then a fresh shill with a fresh government-issued IP address turn up tomorrow ... that's no win. Or else they aren't shills, which I think is more likely, in which case you're just in a POV conflict with some other editors who read different propaganda than we do, and it should be possible (at least in theory) to come to a real consensus.
The good news is, there is plenty of good work to be done on that article. And making a clearer, better organized article lifts all boats, makes it easier for every fact to be heard. I mean, there's a sentence locked in place right now, "In October 2015, The Washington Post reported that Russia has redeployed some of its elite units from Ukraine to Syria in recent weeks to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad." Nobody on either side has actually read that article from beginning to end! And there is chaos in the organization with the invasions placed in subheadings under one particular term, while international affairs are in a different section, and under international affairs are several of the assassinations. If the organization is put straight, it becomes inevitable to have a section on the assassinations and other human rights and corruption issues, and it becomes inevitable to reflect the structure of the article in the structure of the lede. If people fight you tooth and nail on that stuff, on every little detail, then you start shifting the balance of evidence against them and get get more neutral editors interested. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a long complex story. I appreciate your concern. It really has nothing to do with you specifically. Once, back when WP first began, NPOV actually meant being neutral, like not taking sides. Now it just means always taking the "RS winning side". It saddens me. And there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it. Not your fault. Sorry. Scott P. (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (@Wnt:)
Over the years I've tried many different things to try to bring it back round, but always feel like I'm merely growing the size of a certain dent in my head.Scott P. (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikifreak[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikifreak requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No more of that nonsense, please. --NeilN talk to me 12:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

After the poor homeless man suffered the indignity of being deleted from Wikipedia, I heard he also got an infestation of stonelice! Shame on you!! Scott P. (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

One step at a time[edit]

The new talk page system you are proposing is interesting but I think you might be introducing too many rules in one go, in particular the "only two people" one might not be necessary, perhaps your next experiment could relax that rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Iudaeorum (talkcontribs) 15:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You must be a psychic, whether or not a pseudoscientific one I cannot tell. That was my same thought exactly, but first I need to finish my talk with Sphil. I thank you for your promising affirmation that this might help to improve communications around here. I was thinking that there could be two versions. One for one-to-one, based on the one I am now doing with Sphil, and one that would more closely simulate a "conference call." But first things first. I must finish working with Sphil.
Scott P. (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Rex, I love your name. I promise not to crucify you. You have obviously picked up a little on what I consider to be the amazing potential of what I will humbly call a "new talk page format" that appears to have never before have been tried. Would love to get into an email chat with you if you were interested. Unfortunately my email seems to get hacked from time to time, so for starters, any initial emails should probably be confirmed here on this page, when sent and when received. Please feel welcome to use the email I provided in the simulated email page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (@Rex Iudaeorum:)

Your alternative account[edit]

Here should be disclosed on your userpage, even if it is for 'viewing only,' per WP:ALTACCN: editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts. Cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fortuna, I think my brain may be operating a bit more in the "semper crescis" mode just now."  :-) Scott P. (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Odd coincidence, the similarity between the words, crisis and crescis. Hmm... :-) :-) Scott P. (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan[edit]

As a new contributor to Wikipedia, I offered my first suggestion to the subject article after reading the preceding comments that included yours. I appreciated your balanced view and calming demeanor. I'll try to emulate that as I contribute.SkepticT (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sir, Wikipedia currently only offers one semi-experimental dialogue format that might work for such a conversation which you may be proposing here.
This dialogue format is the "WP simulated phone call" dialogue format. This "simulated phone call" dialogue format is currently believed to be originating from one of our editors headquartered in Scottsdale AZ. The writing of this dialogue format is currently only partially completed. If you might think it could be of value to complete the rest of the writing of this, to enable such communication ability here, we may be able to complete this writing sooner. Might you be interested?
Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 1921

I would be interested, but have nothing to add at the moment. Thanks.SkepticT (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)