User talk:Scottywong/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship

I am not happy with your removal of Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship. Your arguments are as weak as you say the arguments of the keep-sayers are. Therefore, I request userfication of the article so I can work on it. Could you please restore the article to User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage14? Night of the Big Wind talk 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See this for extra info about the senior status on the intermediate competition: Changes required if Laois hurling is to progress Night of the Big Wind talk 21:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. If you had a source, why wouldn't you have either added it to the article, or even mentioned it in the AfD? Your whole argument was "I'm from Ireland, I know about this competition, trust me!" That kind of argument doesn't work at AfD. I haven't looked at the source enough to tell if it's a game-changer or not, but I'm confused as to why you wouldn't have mentioned it in the AfD. I'll move the article to User:Night of the Big Wind/Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship. Please don't restore it to article space without addressing the issues discussed at the AfD, or alternately taking it to WP:DRV. —SW— yak 21:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes people have a live outside Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Second reason: I did not take the nomination serious. a) because it came shortly after the first AfD was closed as no consensus and b) because the nominator fell over a intermediate/junior confusion that nobody had noticed before. After correcting that. The problem looked solved. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Westhollow Society

You said it was a copyright violation to use text from our existing website. We are the CEO of Westhollow Society and have every right to use that information elsewhere so there is no copyright violation.

Let me know if we need to send proof or what we need to do.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You can read more about this topic at WP:DCM. You would need to prove your identity as the copyright holder. —SW— gossip 23:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi Scottywong and congratulations on becoming an admin!

Could you please take a look at this edit made by your bot? The AfD was closed by Elen, but it added the tag back into the article. Were there technical errors in Elen's close? Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Elen has solved the problem. I'm not removing my message just because it contains my congratulations. Face-wink.svg Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I missed

... your RFA. But it seems to have got on quite nicely without me. Congratulations, have a modest star.  pablo 10:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A modest star, eh? How classy. I prefer that over barnstars and kittens any day.  :P —SW— confer 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

re: declined db-A7 at Ari Zoldan


I noticed that you have declined the speedy delete of Ari Zoldan. Reviewing the article's history shows that this was not the first such recommendation. The suggestion that "credible claims are made for this individual's notability" is incorrect; had you examined it further, you'd see this is clearly a pay-for-placement bio, which has the veneer of notability by claiming "expertise" but without fulfilling any of the actual requirements of WP:BIO -- showing the individual "has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." There is not a single source about the individual, nor substantiation of any of the grandiose claims made. I'll place this as PROD. --HidariMigi (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a suspected pay-for-placement bio doesn't qualify an article for speedy deletion under the A7 criterion. Not fulfilling the requirements of WP:BIO also doesn't qualify an article for speedy deletion. In order to escape speedy deletion via A7, the article merely has to mention something about the subject which, if true, would be notable. For instance, the article includes these claims: Mr. Zoldan constructed a global network moving minutes around the world via satellite and fiber optics. He has built extensive commercial networks in Africa, Asia, South America, and Europe for carrier markets. Mr. Zoldan makes regular appearances on national broadcast outlets and has been featured on CNN and Fox Business Network, FOX NEWS, POPULAR SCIENCE, NBC and many talk and radio news shows. If these claims are false or unverifiable, or you believe that his actual accomplishments don't satisfy WP:BIO, then make your case at AfD. The standard for speedy deletion is very strict; please read WP:CSD#A7 for more details. —SW— talk 16:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:


  • Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
  • Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


Could you userfy People's Theater to User:Tomtomn00/People's Theater? Thanks! ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 22:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done —SW— express 22:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. :-) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I swear, I didn't touch it

tools:~snottywong/cgi-bin/rfastats.cgi?name=Josh_Parris&max=&startdate=&altname= goes boom. Josh Parris 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hrmm. It probably has something to do with the fact that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Utahraptor's sock was deleted. I won't have a chance to look into it until tomorrow. Thanks for the notice, though. —SW— verbalize 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems to have fixed itself. I have a theory for what happened. As you probably know, the replag on toolserver has been way out of whack lately, and it started correcting itself sometime yesterday. As the replag was catching up, it probably hit a point where Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Utahraptor's sock still existed. So, the tool was told by the toolserver database that the page existed and you had edited it, but when it went to grab the page text to figure out what your vote was, it was told by the API that the page didn't exist. This is apparently a situation I failed to foresee when programming the tool, and it is not capable of dealing with that situation. Since this is a situation that, theoretically, should never happen, (and in reality, should rarely happen since RfA's are not commonly deleted), I probably won't take the time to fix it. But, as always, thanks for letting me know about it. —SW— talk 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Need your valuable feedback

Hello Scottywong!

I need your valuable feedback here. I hope you see the point. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Thank you! :) Brendon is here 08:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot keeps trying to delete page after issues addressed

Hi! Someone recently proposed the page Bandzoogle for deletion because there weren't enough objective references. I fixed the problem by adding references, editing the article, and then tried to remove the "proposed for deletion" tag. It worked, for about 1 minute, and then the bot reposted the deletion notice. Not sure how to proceed. Help? Thanks! CandleOfFaith (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) There was no "proposed for deletion" tag on that article. There was an "articles for deletion" tag, which is a completely different process. Did you see the bit in the tag that says "this notice must not be removed"? There's a reason for it: the AFD process does not stop even if you remove the tag. The tag will be removed when the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandzoogle is officially closed next week. In between now and then, you need to leave the tag on the article, exactly like the tag tells you to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


? 28bytes (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. I've stopped the bot until I have the time to look into it (which should be in a few hours). —SW— converse 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, after much searching, I still can't figure out why the bot decided to do that all of a sudden. I haven't made any code changes to it for weeks. There must be something wonky with today's log page, but I can't find it. In any case, I added some code that will absolutely prevent the bot from ever editing a log page again, so while I'm not happy that I don't know why it happened, I think we can safely say it won't happen again. Thanks for the notice, and feel free to stop the bot (either by adding any content to User:Snotbot/control or by blocking it) in the future if you believe it is acting up. —SW— soliloquize 18:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I know why - that page was placed in CAT:AFD when someone added the category directly to a debate. The diff I found is here. The usual template (the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING template) keeps the category from being transcluded with the debate, but a bare category carries over. The bot saw that it wasn't in the log (of course it's not in the log, it is the log), and attempted to add it. Hilarity ensued. I've fixed it now, and am checking the other debates in today's log to make sure it's just the one. Not sure how to fix this one, but I think that you'd be fine if you added a check to verify that the page was not Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today before editing. You might also have the bot list "Pages in CAT:AFD that aren't deletion debates" and include the log when this sort of error occurs - hell, it might be something you can find with the bot. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Also look at the pages added to User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention before you shut that off - I'm betting it was the same problem. Try a test run there, I'll bet it comes out normal again. The top pages there are all ones that transclude the "Log/Today" page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Good call. That is exactly the issue. In response, I've made sure that the bot won't try to "fix" the transclusion of:
  1. Pages that are not in the Wikipedia namespace.
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesterday, Wikipedia:XfD today.
  3. Pages whose title starts with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/".
Let me know if you know of any other pages that shouldn't be touched. Your fix should also cause the User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention page to be back to normal when it next updates that page (probably in about 4 hours). Thanks! —SW— squeal 20:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Scottywong. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations you pass..

...the "AFD is not a vote" test for not just counting snouts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platinum Suites. I almost punched that one "delete" myself but then noticed that one editor had provided what he/she believed to be supersources but there was no analysis/rebuttal of them. I hate to see AFDs where an editor provides sources and gets ignored and even worse when their comment is followed up with more "drive by" delete !votes. IMHO one should watchlist any AFD one participates in and reconsider ones !vote if appropriate.

On a side note, while AFD is not a "vote" numbers aren't meaningless either. If they were then canvassing and sock-puppetry/SPAs wouldn't be an issue. A point I tried to make with my additions to WP:SUPERVOTE. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'm getting the hang of this whole "admin discretion" thing. Face-wink.svg -Scottywong| gab _ 18:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC 149

To stop any further disruption, would you consider full protection on the redirect until August 21, 2012 (one month after the event) then at that point it should be clear if any lasting effect has been established ? Mtking (edits) 00:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist now, so I'll keep an eye on it. If disruption continues, I'll protect it. There's no indication at this point that it's going to progress any further than a 2-revert edit war, especially since the editor has been blocked. -Scottywong| converse _ 14:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter!


Happy Easter! Hope your day is great! Face-smile.svg Yasht101 13:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: New sign rocks!

ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa

Kindly restore this article and redirect it to ProElite per WP:MAD, as content from that article had been merged earlier and so the attribution history must remain public per the GFDL, etc. Thanks! -- (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The revision of ProElite you linked to above is from January 26th, but that same content didn't show up in ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa until January 28th. It appears to me that the merge went in the other direction, and therefore no attribution history has been lost in the deletion. -Scottywong| express _ 18:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I have a slightly different request, though also somewhat similar to that other IP editor. Anyway, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#Omnibus_articles. There is discussion of creating MMA events in 2011 articles elsewhere and as such, having this content available would be helpful for those efforts. Could you therefore undelete the article's content and then redirect to ProElite for the time being per TreyGeek's efforts? As you can see, he actually has been working on such articles and those of us willing to help out would greatly appreciate if we have the material to draw from rather than having to start totally from scratch. Undeleting, but redirecting would go a long way toward helping the compromise efforts and thereby cooling tensions there. Also, Happy Easter! -- (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done The content of ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa was virtually identical to the content of the "ProElite 3" section of this revision of ProElite. If you need any of that content, you can copy and paste it directly from that revision. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 13:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is very late

Hey, I was just checking out the RfAs that I've missed lately and I was happy to see yours in the successful list! Congrats, and sorry that I missed it! Swarm X 05:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! ‑Scottywong| yak _ 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have five minutes?

I've asked a couple of experienced closers to look at some log editing I did today, but neither had the time right away. Would you mind looking at my recent contributions to the AfD log for 4/2 and 4/9 to be sure I did them correctly? ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) It appears some of User:Bmusician's relists went awry. Wanted to know more before I provided that user feedback. Thanks in any event. BusterD (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I found one AfD commented out in today's log which probably should not have been, see my fix here. Other than that, it looks ok as far as I can tell. Also, if there are un-transcluded AfD's out there, Snotbot should find them and fix them eventually (although I need to look into how the bot handles AfD's that are commented out to say that for sure). I've noticed that relists can get screwed up if you try to do them too quickly. I always wait for the last one to finish before I start the next, and I haven't had any problems since (assuming you're using the same script I am). ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate the eyes. Thanks again to you and Snotbot. BusterD (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Is this your first? Thanks for taking care of that SPI. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Glad I could help, I'd like to get better acquainted with SPI. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 03:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure they'd appreciate the help. I'm wondering how thankless of a job it is, though, since one generally gets to see the bad side of things...I have great respect for the regulars there. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Straight pride

Just a note. There is/was a no consensus merge discussion on the talk page... I even mention it in the opening statement, and it's referred to a number of times in the discussion... WormTT · (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hrmm. My reading comprehension appears to be suffering on very long discussions. I know I read that, but it didn't stick for some reason. I've taken out that recommendation from the closing statement. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No problems. Have a good one. WormTT · (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Scottywong, that was a well reasoned close--good job. When you closed it though, the lower quarter of the discussion didn't end up in the shaded box for some reason. It might have something to do with the reflist template someone put on the page? Not sure how to fix it, haven't seen that happen before. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
That is pretty bizarre. Seems to have been caused by indenting the {{Reflist}} template. Not sure why, but this seems to have fixed it. Thanks for the notice. ‑Scottywong| express _ 15:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks better now. So many odd ways things can get messed up here. Oh well, take care. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New tool for counting votes on individual AfDs

I've created a small new tool which analyzes individual AfD's and displays how many votes of each type were detected. I find this useful to help with closing AfD's, particularly very long ones, when you just want to get a quick headcount to get your bearings. Much improved over manually counting. (Yes, I know AfD's are not decided by headcounts, and no, that's not how I close AfD's. But, the headcount is one consideration.) It will also attempt to detect duplicate votes. I believe a similar tool used to exist awhile ago, but eventually broke and the link was removed.

Anyway, on new AfD's created as of today (but not ones that were relisted and put on today's log), there is a new "Stats" link in the header. It will only return relevant information if there is at least one vote. Take a look and let me know what you think. In particular, if there is any other pertinent information which would be useful for it to display, I'd love to hear suggestions.

Here are some example links: [6][7][8] ‑Scottywong| spout _ 03:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow I'll take a look at it. Bmusician 07:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Scott Gerber

Yes, the article was too promotional; it should be edited, not deleted. Can you PLEASE put it back up to allow for a discussion? Whereisthemouse (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be more willing to restore the article if this request wasn't the first edit you've ever made under this account, considering in particular that the article was created by a known sockpuppeteer. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver tools should probably return Content-Type

I've been using your commentsearch.cgi script, but it doesn't seem to be returning a Content-Type. I'm guessing it is a Perl script, so, it'd be great if you could output a "Content-Type: text/html\n" header after the 200 OK header. Without a Content-Type header, some HTTP clients (not the main web browsers, but a few weird HTTP clients) presume that you are providing an application/octetstream and not attempt to parse the HTML contained therein. For instance, on an IRC channel I hang out on, if you paste a URL in, it'll attempt to load it, but needs to see text/html Content-Type before attempting to parse the HTML and extract the title element.

Thanks for the excellent tools! —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source of that page, and see <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/> at the top. Is that not sufficient? ‑Scottywong| converse _ 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Three piece suit

Gentleman in bowler.JPG Three piece suit
Dianna admires your new high-tone signature and now pictures you going around in a stylish three piece suit. :) Dianna (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I like it. All the other admins just get a crappy t-shirt, but I get a three piece suit... Face-wink.svg ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Scott Gerber Wikipedia page

Dear Administrator,

I'd like to request that the Wikipedia page for Scott Gerber be re-published and ask for suggestions to make the page less self promotional as cited for the reason it was taken down. Mr. Gerber is a well-known entrepreneur, author and nonprofit leader supporting young entrepreneurs around the globe. I believe that his life and work is noteworthy and should be reconsidered. At the very least I'd like it to be re-published so that a conversation about whether or not it should be deleted can occur.

Please feel free to email me at with any questions.

Thank you,

Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. The article was created by a banned sockpuppet who was likely paid to create the article. You could easily be that same editor. Take it to DRV if you want, but I can pretty much guarantee it won't be overturned there either. You can try writing the article over again if you like, without the promotional slant, but I'm not going to restore the original one. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you consider to be self promotional? It's unclear to me what I should be editing. Thank you for your time.

Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • "Scott Gerber is...a sought-after public speaker"
  • "He’s been widely recognized as the world's most-syndicated columnist on the subject of entrepreneurship."
  • "His flooded with e-mails from young people who have sent out hundreds of résumés for corporate jobs and come up empty."
  • "Never Get a 'Real' Job: How to Dump Your Boss, Build a Business, and Not Go Broke is Gerber’s auto-biographical story of a hard-working, self-taught 26-year-old hustler, rainmaker, and bootstrapper who has survived and thrived despite never having held the proverbial "real” job."
  • "Gerber challenges the social conventions behind the 'real' job and empowers young people to take control of their lives and dump their nine-to-fives—or their quest to attain them."
  • "Drawing upon case studies, experiences, and observations, Scott dissects failures, shares hard-learned lessons, and presents practical, affordable, and systematic action steps to building, managing, and marketing a successful business on a shoestring budget."
I could go on. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, i.e. it's not the place where you write about how awesome someone is, and post testimonials about their books. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. a place where facts about a person are neutrally documented. You'd do well to read and understand WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:SPAM. You'd also want to fully understand WP:N and WP:GNG to make sure this individual actually is notable by Wikipedia's standards, otherwise the article might get deleted again for different reasons. I also just checked a couple of the sources in the deleted article, and saw that there was some direct copying and close paraphrasing from those sources, so the deleted version of the article will definitely not be restored. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the feedback. It certainly was not our intention to break the rules. We're new to Wikipedia and appreciate the consideration of having our organization and our Founder documented for the benefit of those interested in what we do. We will give it another shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And in the case that you are closely affiliated with the subject, you should definitely read WP:COI. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 20:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Is someone bothering me over adding the fact that a former model had children? She states that in her bio and I sourced it. Now someone is accusing me of being a sockpuppet and asking for the article to be deleted. I was on here a long time ago editing a page called Wishology and now that was reverted too. I'm not sure what is going on. (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you go forward with the plan you mentioned on JoeSperrazza's talk page. Otherwise, it is easy for people to mistake you for a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are a real problem, and there will always be false positives when you try to identify them. Registering an account and building up a history/reputation on the site will allow other editors to trust you a whole lot more. It's also technically more anonymous than editing as an IP, since I can tell where in the world you live just by looking up your IP; you can't do the same for me. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 14:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Permanent ban

I didn't want to interrupt the ANI thread with my soapbox, but someday I'm going to write an essay on why we should never enact permanent bans (of people,; usernames are different).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please ping me upon completion - I suspect I'd agree with it most enthusiastically. — Ched :  ?  02:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
And I doubt we really can enact a permanent ban of a person. There are always ways to come back, appeal, start anew, etc. My suggestion at ANI (that we unblock the editor and tell them the next one will be forever) was more of an exercise in motivation than a genuine suggestion that we ban him from now until eternity. The real question with problematic editors who have been blocked for an extended period of time is, "how long is long enough?" How long do they need to stay blocked before we allow them to create a new account and start fresh, or before we seriously consider an appeal of their block. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 14:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact I can think of 1 2 3 4 5 ... well, you get the idea, right off the top of my head that can't edit - and they are ones that have added some top notch stuff over the years. Yet there is still that "indef" block hanging over their head. Sad actually, and it makes it difficult to not become discouraged over such things. — Ched :  ?  20:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Scotty, need your feedback!

Need your feedback, again. Made some changes and finally it is ready, I guess. Click here. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Thank you!

--Brendon is here 00:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD nominations

I've noticed that when you nominate an article for deletion, you always add a "Delete as nom" type statement right beneath your nomination. This is unusual, unnecessary, and potentially confusing. Since it's Articles for Deletion, it is always assumed that the editor who nominates the article is implicitly voting to delete article. Not a big deal, but I thought I'd point that out. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

First let me congratulate you on your successful RfA : )
Second, As I have not nominated anything else for AfD for a rather long period of time, I presume you're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples.
As for why I nominate that way, several reasons. (I've been nominating this way for years.) The main reason is clarity (rather than lack of it).
The nomination statement of any XfD is at the lede (lead/head/top) of the page, regardless of how many times someone signs their name. The initial part of a nom is just that, the nomination - Why is this page listed here. And typically includes the rationale for the nomination. But there are times where the nominator may not directly agree with a nomination. A procedural nom, for one thing. Or perhaps a nomination due to a consensus at a Wikiproject or some other talk page, where the nominator disagrees, but is helpfully starting the nom. Or if the nom is trying to lay out the various different results suggested by different editors from a discussion. (Not all XfDs result in delete only, not even AfD, believe it or not.) And finally, as I said, clarity. Sometimes, it's better to separate my personal preference from a nomination. For one thing, it's helpful if the discussion ends up swaying me one way or other. (Side effect of an open mind : ) - I may not wish to withdraw (which, incidentally, would be immaterial if enough people have commented), but I may wish to strike my personal opinion. But the nom itself should stay static in place if possible.
And no decent closer is going to be confused if the first asterisked line of a discussion says: blah - as nominator. If they are, they shouldn't be closing discussions. (That said, I totally agree that multiple bolded "votes" in the body of a discussion (especially a lengthy one) can be a royal pain for a closer : )
Anyway, that's the long winded answer : )
The short answer is: WP:BURO  : )
Third, since you bring up the AfD, did you close based upon the number of votes? or did you weigh arguments? And if the latter, what did you weigh which served to indicate how you decided to close? (Consider this a friendly "request for clarification".) - jc37 00:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You seem to enjoy doing things your way. Including copying a conversation that I started on your talk page to my talk page, for some reason. Anyway, I'm not trying to force you to do things one way or another. I'm just pointing out that the way you're doing it is abnormal. If you look at any random AfD, chances are awfully good that the nominator didn't include a bolded vote directly below their nomination statement. An important aspect for clarity and understanding is communicating in a consistent, predictable way. If 99% of the people nominate an article one way, and you do it a different way, then I would argue that your way has less clarity.
As for the supercouples AfD, that was a pretty clear keep. Consensus was that while parts of the article may contain OR and be sub-standard, the majority of the article is not OR, so deletion would be futile. Also, there were 9 keeps and 2 deletes. Yes, that is a consideration, despite however much people don't like to talk about it. On a 9 vs. 2 discussion, the 2 better have a mind-blowing argument if the discussion is going to be closed in their favor.
I'm all for doing things your own way, and I'm not a proponent of conformism, but sometimes doing things the way everyone else does just makes things easier for everyone. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 02:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
And we may find that most people only use the automatic tools to create a nom. If everyone uses the same tools, then maybe they might just come up with the same results. Seems it's more a sign of the complexity of creating a nom at AfD, than anything else. YMMV, of course.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
There was no criticism of your close, merely a request to clarify, as I was here already and was curious. As I'm sure you might imagine, my concerns were not one of a deletionist bent (whatever I may have been accused of : ) - It was merely that most of the sources stank, and (more importantly) it was pretty much duplication, and blah at that. But whichever, at times it seems consensus allows for people to have their walled garden to play in : ) - jc37 02:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Forgive me for not being impressed by your summary in closing a page that has had good and periodically high traffic since 2006. The nominator asked for a merge of one part and a deletion of the part of the page that she completely misunderstood. From her lack of response to my queries, she apparently never looked at the deletion page anymore, after creating it during a period of non-activity in international football (creating very low traffic on the page). There were no further arguments given for the merge or the deletion of the section. Three people pasted "Delete, it's OR" and one person argued "keep" for its very widespread interest. You closed the page because the arguments for OR were not adequately refuted, but mine were the only arguments made (I also referred to a discussion on the talk page in 2007). I can see that an argument for OR can be made, especially by deletionists that see OR around every tree, but this didn't happen on the AfD page, unless you call repeating "This is OR" argumentation. Also, do I learn from this that the reason for AfD nomination has no correlation with the outcome? Afasmit (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel unimpressed, but my goal wasn't to impress you. The nominator is just one of the participants in the AfD, he doesn't necessarily have to mention something in his nomination statement before it can be discussed by others. Also, he does note the absence of secondary sources, which is basically another way of saying that it is original research (OR is defined as "material for which no reliable, published sources exist").
The proper response to a claim of OR is, "It's not original research, here are the reliable secondary sources which back it up." Instead, the main rebuttal was that it gets a lot of hits, which is not a valid argument to establish the notability of an article. For the same reason, it makes no difference that the article was nominated for deletion during a period of low traffic. The number of visitors to a page is simply not a consideration at AfD. ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Forgive me for not being impressed by your summary in closing a page that has had good and periodically high traffic since 2006. The nominator asked for a merge of one part and a deletion of the part of the page that she completely misunderstood. From her lack of response to my queries, she apparently never looked at the deletion page anymore, after creating it during a period of non-activity in international football (creating very low traffic on the page). There were no further arguments given for the merge or the deletion of the section. Three people pasted "Delete, it's OR" and one person argued "keep" for its very widespread interest. You closed the page because the arguments for OR were not adequately refuted, but mine were the only arguments made (I also referred to a discussion on the talk page in 2007). I can see that an argument for OR can be made, especially by deletionists that see OR around every tree, but this didn't happen on the AfD page, unless you call repeating "This is OR" argumentation. Also, do I learn from this that the reason for AfD nomination has no correlation with the outcome? Afasmit (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel unimpressed, but my goal wasn't to impress you. The nominator is just one of the participants in the AfD, he doesn't necessarily have to mention something in his nomination statement before it can be discussed by others. Also, he does note the absence of secondary sources, which is basically another way of saying that it is original research (OR is defined as "material for which no reliable, published sources exist").
The proper response to a claim of OR is, "It's not original research, here are the reliable secondary sources which back it up." Instead, the main rebuttal was that it gets a lot of hits, which is not a valid argument to establish the notability of an article. For the same reason, it makes no difference that the article was nominated for deletion during a period of low traffic. The number of visitors to a page is simply not a consideration at AfD. ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I’d thought that the closing administrator’s goal was to summarize why the arguments on the AfD convinced him/her to delete the page.
However, it gets a lot of hits was not in my response at the AfD, let alone was it my “main rebuttal”. Above I only mentioned its popularity and long existence (it also was translated twice and had multiple 5-year old links to it) to suggest that it deserved better than such a flimsy AfD discussion.
Neither was “low traffic” an argument at that discussion; it did affect the outcome of course, as participants were limited to a few roaming the deletion pages, while interested parties were missing (perhaps some would have understood that “Delete as OR” means "please add secondary sources").
Instead, I argued that the tables represent Routine calculations. As many editors seem to think that any list not word for word published before is OR, rendering basically all wikipedia lists OR, I was prepared to lose this argument anyway. The lack of any real discussion made me feel like Michael Palin and run to the complaints room.
Could you answer my other question above: a relatively novice nominator asked for a merger of the main section and a deletion of another section, which he/she’d completely misunderstood, but by using the blunt AfD tool caused the page to be deleted, its history to be lost and links to it to become dead. Again, do the motivations of the nominator matter in the outcome of an AfD?

Invisible signature

Or very nearly - while there's no denying what you've done is pretty, it also depends almost entirely on the text-shadow property, so if one happens to be using a browser that doesn't support that, say, IE (and some people do still use it), not only is it not terribly identifying, it's like there's nothing there at all. I mention this in part because it's actually pretty funny, but also because you might want to consider making it darker for accessibility's sake or some such. Just a thought.

Although maybe it would be fine in IE 10, anwyay, I dunno. The entire machine exploded last time I tried using that one. Isarra (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the incompatibility with IE. Frankly, part of me doesn't care, since I have little pity for people who insist on using the worst browser available. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind having a sig which includes my full username instead of just SW, so maybe I'll look into making a new one. —SW— confer 22:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll give this one a try for awhile. -Scottywong| gossip _ 00:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Test... -Scottywong| spout _ 00:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
One more. -Scottywong| converse _ 00:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Mmm, stands out. Nice. Isarra (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Just saw your new sig on a discussion, thought I'd pop by and say it looks good! WormTT · (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I've completely ripped off your sig Face-smile.svg, unless you object I'm going to make a note of it on my user page too, I don't mind ppl knowing I didn't create it, I just think it's awesome, and I totally agree with your description of ppl that insist on using IE too! -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of all Jessies

Hi! After the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie (character) it was decided to delete the article and not merge it into any disambiguation page for being non-notable. The user had then created a redirect page which was also speedily deleted. But i see that two more redirects under different spelling of this exist at Jessie Thekkekutu and Jessie Thekekuttu. Now what do i tag these redirects with? Hope we dont require AfD for this. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like they're both redirecting to Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa#Cast, which seems like a plausible redirect. I don't see any reason to delete them (although you may want to keep them on your watchlist to ensure someone doesn't try to re-create the deleted article there), but you can take them to WP:RFD if you think they should be deleted. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 14:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well... i guess i should forget it. Not much harm, though useless in my opinion. Yeah.. they are on watchlist now. So problems in future will be spotted. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Alan M. Greenberg

Hello Scotty, Thanks for your analysis on Alan M. Greenberg. Could you remove the article entirely so I can create a stub that utilizes the recommendations of the editors? Thanks Fleurdelis4ever Fleurdelis4ever (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is already deleted entirely. While you're welcome to create a new article (i.e. one that is substantially different than the one that was deleted), please realize that the chances are low that the new article won't also be deleted. Take a moment to review WP:GNG and make sure Mr. Greenberg qualifies as notable before going through the effort to create another article that gets deleted. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I understand it's been deleted, but when you type in Alan Greenberg into Wikipedia's search engine, his name still comes up in red and states that a page with this title has previously been deleted. People who don't have much experience with Wikipedia may view that with a negative connotation. Is there a way to completely remove any reference to his name and the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurdelis4ever (talkcontribs) 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. There is not a way to hide the deletion log for an article. That information should only be displayed if someone searches for "Alan M. Greenberg", and then clicks on the redlink in: "You may create the page 'Alan M. Greenberg', but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.". Otherwise, if someone just searches the name, the deletion log won't be displayed. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional supercouples

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This discussion is closed as "keep". However, I wonder if you have read the discussion because there is no closure rationale, as there have been long arguments about the list. Can you add your reasons for this? --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I always read the full discussion before closing an AfD. I generally don't include a closure rationale when the result is obvious. In this case, I believe the result is obvious. The discussion was long, but that doesn't change the fact that the result was obvious. Is there something you have a specific question about? Or, do you disagree that the result was obvious? If so, why? ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Which arguments were strong and were weak? Why? How obvious? --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The delete arguments were weak, both numerically and policy-wise. Their main argument was that the content of the article currently has some original research, or that it has a high potential for OR to be introduced. Neither of these are policy-based reasons to delete the entire article. If there is OR or other unverifiable content in the article, then that content should be removed, not the whole article. No one argued convincingly that the entire content of the article was 100% OR, which is the only case where it would be appropriate to delete the entire article. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Even though I was "pending", how are mine? --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, you're talking about problems with some of the content of the article, the list's inclusion criteria, and its formatting. These are not reasons to delete the entire article. These are things that should be discussed on the talk page of the article as ways to improve it. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 17:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WorldVentures Deletion

Scotty, I just wanted to follow up regarding your recent deletion of the WorldVentures article. I'm not the most experienced editor, and I'm afraid my voice wasn't heard amidst all the debate.

I cleaned up the article to ensure that all the links were working prior to its final deletion. So that should be a non-issue. Beyond that, I'm having a hard time seeing how inclusion in the Inc. 5000 (#994, in fact) and Founders nominated for Ernst & Young Entrepreneurs of the Year, along with solid coverage in Dallas publication D Magazine (This is the link to page 7, they're at the bottom), don't establish Notability.

And while it may be debatable as to whether Direct Selling News merits a Wikipedia article of its own, the fact remains that it is the primary industry publication covering the Direct Selling and Network Marketing industry. And so inclusion in the DSN Global 100 list of the 100 largest direct selling companies worldwide (#90 for 2011), an extensive article on the company (The New Freedom Fighters), and its philanthropic efforts (WorldVentures: Living and Giving) over the last two years, all add up to what seems to be a clear foundation for WP:CORP.

What am I missing here? Virgil06 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As the closing admin, it's not really my place to evaluate the sources. They were already evaluated by the editors who participated in the discussion. Several editors noted that they independently reviewed the sources and were not convinced that they established the notability of the company, along with specific reasons why. There's not much I can do, unless you can dredge up some new sources that were not discussed in the AfD, which unequivocally meet WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe consensus was reached. I have legitimate concerns that I believe were not heard. Several of the comments that were made don't make any sense to me. Torchiest claimed the mentions were either trivial or not independent. The Inc. 5000 is not a trivial mention (it was on newsstands worldwide and WorldVentures has a profile, albeit a small one, on the Inc. website), and it's definitely independent. Livitup said sources were unreliable, but I verified that the links worked. And I fail to see how just because a publication such as Direct Selling News exists to report on an industry, that significant coverage in that publication is not valid. Further, I don't believe my addition of the D Magazine source—during the discussion period—which not only validates the Ernst & Young nomination (also reliable), but also spends nine paragraphs discussing the notability of the company and its founders, was properly considered. I fully agree that this article is not much beyond a stub, but per WP:NCORP, while the coverage may not be considered substantial, the fact that there are multiple independent sources still establishes notability. Virgil06 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The Inc. 5000 source is a single sentence, not significant coverage. Regardless of how many newsstands it was placed on, it's still a single sentence. That sentence could be used to source a statement in the article, but it can't be used to establish the notability of the company. The same is true for the Direct Selling News source. That source could be used as a reference for a fact in the article, but since it is not independent it does not count towards establishing notability. Also, saying that a source is unreliable is not synonymous with saying that a link is broken. Please read WP:RS for a description on what a reliable source is. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New tool - editor interaction analyzer

I've created another new tool today; something I've wanted to create for awhile and had time to work on today. It still needs some cleaning up, but at this point it appears to work pretty well. Essentially, it is a twist on the popular stalker tool. You put in two editors, and it will find the pages that both editors have edited. The twist is that it sorts the results based on the minimum time between edits by both users. In other words, if both editors made an edit to the same page within a short time, that page will show up towards the top of the table.

The general idea is that when two users edit a page within a short time, chances are high that they have interacted directly with one another on that page. Therefore, instead of just returning a list of common pages edited by both users, it returns a list of pages where two users most likely had some direct interaction with one another. It's subtly different, but I think it can be a powerful tool.

Try it out at and let me know what you think. As always, bug reports and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thats very cool Snotty. I just loved it like your all other tools. You are doing awesome work... Yasht101 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Amazing tool! Great work! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 02:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Biotechnology in Maryland Deletion

Hi Scotty, just wanted to touch base with you before I request to have my article go to deletion review. Here was the response you gave for deletion: The result was delete. There is clearly pretty strong consensus that the article should be deleted in its current state, and so it will be deleted. However, there is also a large minority who believe that an appropriate article on this subject could be written, and that this article currently has some good information. Therefore, I'm willing to userfy this article if anyone is interested. Please contact me on my talk page to request.

Although there was some consensus in the beginning of the discussion to delete, if you scroll down you'll notice the article was significantly improved to be more neutral by JoelWhy and myself during the course of discussion. Four users supported keeping the article in its improved state (don't think everyone had a chance to re-read), which doesn't seem like a consensus call for delete. All of the original nominator's concerns were addressed. A few of the positive comments you may have missed: I've started editing out the more clearly-promotional language. There really is some excellent content in this article, and I think it's easier to edit and fix than to recreate from scratch. (JoelWhy) | I opined that the article we saw initially at AFD needed to be blown up and started over, and that's pretty much what has happened to it (Squeamish Ossifrage) | The concerns I had above have been dealt with, with a fundamental rewrite. The article could still use fine tuning, but is overall a good article that covers the topic in a significantly more neutral manner. (Dennis Brown) Thanks for your time and I hope you'll reconsider your decision. Ferddog (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC) (formerly mdbizauthor)

Is it your opinion that you're done with improving the article, and that all concerns have been addressed? Or are there still issues that need to be fixed? If it's the latter, I would suggest having the article restored to your userspace (which I'm happy to do), work on it for a bit, and then move it back into article space (or optionally take the improved article to DRV if you want to play it safe, although generally it's ok to re-create a deleted article as long as it's not substantially similar to the one that was deleted). Note that this route is also suggested by Dennis Brown towards the bottom of the deletion discussion. There's no rush; get the article back into the mainspace only when you're sure it won't be nominated for deletion again. Let me know if you'd be agreeable to this. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Scotty. I appreciate the offer to userfy, but it's my opinion that all major concerns were addressed. Did you not think the lastest version sounded more neutral or are you only allowed to look at the the discusion page and not consider the changes that were made? Could it be better? Sure, but I don't see any reason why the page should be userfied or stay deleted in it's new and improved state with the concerns addressed. Instead of going the userfy route and then rehashing the argument all over again with re-posting, think it may be best to just take my chances at DRV. Thanks again, Ferddog (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI issue

Hi -- I have a problem I hope you might be able to help with. I opened an ANI discussion regarding a user, and that user has been filling the discussion with very long posts that largely have nothing to do with the complaint and I feel are repelling uninvolved editors from commenting (due to tl;dr). I was thinking maybe the comments could be collapsed with {{hat}}, but as the user who brought the complaint, I obviously can't do that myself. I'm wondering if you can have a look and offer advice on how to handle this. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User promoting a movement. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:37, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This user has accused me of 4 things: coi, bias, false flag, and spi. Please skim here. 완젬스 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, isn't what Equaczion is proposing limited only to WP:Mediation? 완젬스 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look, the walls of text don't seem so egregious to me that they need to be collapsed. However, I think 완젬스's message would be a lot more clear if he/she strove for increased brevity. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for looking into it. I just hope this moves forward. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again--this should be the end of the issue. Can I ask another question? --shouldn't equaczion be courteous and wait for the spi to finish? Otherwise I have to defend myself with unresolved allegations of spi which I believe will exonerate me from the accuser. This is my first time being stringed up at WP:ANI like a pinata. It's 1-sided and Equaczion has nothing to lose in trying to get me topic banned. If he succeeds, that makes him happy, and even if he fails, I am now sitting/defending myself for the 5th consecutive hour hitting f5 repeatedly on the ANI page as well as his contributions page. He has no empathy! (or at least none that I can detect) 완젬스 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a note, this ANI discussion is not about SPI. Someone else thought it prudent to open an SPI case as a result, but whatever its results, I still feel a topic ban is in order. Apologies for the back-and-forth on your talk page Scotty. Equazcion (talk) 00:09, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Quit beating a dead horse already, 완젬스 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A realization

It was not until recently that I noticed your username is "Scottywong". I had always thought it to be "Snottywong" (with an 'n' instead of a 'c'). Master&Expert (Talk) 20:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was mere minutes after posting this that I checked to see if you had changed your username, when I realized that you were indeed once known as "Snottywong". My apologies for the misconception. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


Well, now, the real Scottywong comes out, deleting such valuable content as Putting Your Football Manager Achievements on Your CV. We're on to you, pal. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Crap! I thought no one would notice... ;) ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
And another hapless admin takes the fall for me! MUHAHAHAHAHA Writ Keeper 16:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template loops

FYI, I made this edit to remove the loop warning. (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone added a category directly again. Since you stopped the bot from listing the log pages, this wasn't a huge deal - but now it tried to list itself. I've fixed the category issue (for now) and removed the loop, but this'll happen again. I've got a thought, and I don't know if this would work - what if you had the bot exclude itself from the "Requiring Attention" page, but also had it list itself at the User:Snotbot/AfD report page? This way we see that there is a problem (and can track it), but it doesn't break the Requiring Attention list. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe better would be for the bot to look for [[Category:AfD debates]] in the page text of each AfD, and announce that at User:Snotbot/AfD report. That way we won't have to manually look through every AfD to see which one is the culprit. I'll also make sure to prevent the bot from making template loops on the User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention page. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That'd be even better, and it would catch the debates that don't make it to the Requiring Attention log. Good call. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of

Hi Scotty. Can I just ask you a quick question about this block? I received a complaint via email as it's a shared corporate IP belonging to Comcast and when I check, I'm actually not seeing any abuse behind it. There are some edits via anons - all from different computers - and one long-term editor, but no new accounts created. What I'm seeing is edits to random telecomms articles, plus one or two vandalistic edits but nothing really concrete - Alison 20:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that the email may have originated from User:Thekohser (i.e. similar name or email address)? I'm reasonably sure that the IP is not shared by more than one person. However, you'd know better than I, since you're a checkuser, so if you believe there are legitimate non-blocked anons trying to edit from that IP, please feel free to unblock it. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. Yes, it did originate from him. And yes, it's shared. A lot of the anon edits are different people, for starters, but I'm confident that the aforementioned banned editor isn't using it. The overall issue (and I'm trying to view this dispassionately, step back, and just do my job) is that the block message can be linked easily to his RL name thus his colleagues will link this recent block directly to him. And that would be unfair, especially as he isn't actually using it - Alison
Hmm. Well, the block log for that IP already mentions his username from previous blocks. And, if he isn't trying to edit WP using that IP address, then how would he have even realized that it had been blocked? Something doesn't add up... ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
He'd certainly have found out when one of his colleagues walked into his office to tell him that his identity is associated with their corporate IP being blocked. And I count at least 4 different anons editing constructively on there :/ - Alison 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I just find it odd that it's a problem all of a sudden. This IP has been blocked for years at a time, with the user's name in the block log. Would it suffice to re-block the IP without using the user's name in the block description? Without seeing the email, I find it difficult to believe that this isn't simply a banned user trying to get their work IP unblocked so they can continue occasionally editing WP. However, again, being the checkuser you have far more information than I do, and so if you decide to unblock this user I will trust you are making the right decision. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm pretty sure he's paid-editing now, coz that's how he rolls, though I've not seen his socks in some time. Put it this way, he'd be crazy to edit from that IP right now because I'll be checking it and I *will* nail those account (and he knows it). Can you elaborate on why exactly you chose to block it, given that there's no socking or excess vandalism going on right now? The previous unblocks in the log clearly show it to be a shared IP - Alison 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a long story. I'll unblock as it seems you're working from better info than me, and you're already keeping an eye on the IP. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 13:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142 and others

Thanks for your closing of the MMA AfD's. You mentioned in the the one on UFC 142 about starting a RfC, are you be willing to help draft the question and push this through as none of the mma fans seem to want to accept anything other than every UFC MMA event is just notable ? Mtking (edits) 05:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'll admit I know next to nothing about MMA, so I wouldn't be much use for coming up with sensible notability guidelines. If you come up with something, I'd be willing to proofread it before it goes live and comment on it. For what it's worth, I'd suggest finding some reasonable editors from the most relevant wikiproject to collaborate with, rather than going it alone. Not only will you have more diverse ideas, but it'll look better too. The recent spurt of AfD's will naturally make you appear non-neutral to your detractors. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, I saw the external link you posted to ANI. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 13:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

KW talk page access

The ANI thread was closed rather quickly, so I'll post here: I would have been happier with a reminder that talk page access is for appealing blocks, and deny access if the abuse continues. I don't feel strongly enough to make the change myself. (I had been following KW's talk page, and confess that the summary here is more extensive that I had thought.) Would you consider returning talk page access in a couple of days, with a short leash? I realize that KW is experienced enough to know how to appeal blocks without talk page access, but some of the posts on the talk page are legitimate uses of the talk page, IMO.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Should KW have needed such a reminder, given that his talk page access had to be revoked during his last block as well, for exactly the same reason? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize that. I'll withdraw the request. My main concern is that we have an editor who appears to be angry. One who hasn't yet accepted that the majority of the reason is his own actions. I'd like to make sure that, as much as possible, we don't provide any appearance of Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. I thought the first block was on the long side, I was happy to see it reduced. I saw the notice of talk page access before seeing the ANI thread, and my first reaction is that it was an over-reaction. However, having seen the summary, I feel differently and have a better understanding of the rationale. My guess is that KW feels unfairly set upon, I'd just like to be careful that we do not do anything to make that feeling justified.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern and understanding. KW is well aware of the reality of the situation, and as Demiurge1000 mentioned, he was informed during his last block about how a user talk page is not to be used during a block (although if I remember correctly, his talk page was protected last time rather than talk page access revoked for some reason). I think it's for the best. KW needs to realize that we're serious, and that if he doesn't make an effort to be civil, he will eventually be banned. This block should serve as a preview for what that ban will be like. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment on the AfD after it's closure

Sorry for that, the AfD was closed while I was already putting together that response to what I felt was an attack or assumption upon myself there. That addition following the closing of the AfD one of an error through simultaneous contribution, my appologies. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it looks like you spent a lot of time crafting that message, so there's no sense in deleting it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives - sacrosanct for those that agree with you?

Not entertaining this discussion. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 15:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
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.

You have defended the premature archiving of the section regarding your placed block by removing the comments of other users. However, you have not reverted this. Please revert that substantial change to the section, or restore the other substantial change to the section. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. I'm not a moron. Fixing a minor formatting issue is not the same as advancing the conversation with new comments. I didn't archive the thread, if you don't like that it's archived, complain to the person who archived it. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have. You are defending the archiving, but somehow you are not defending it from someone correcting their evidence such that it's not totally clear that you didn't review each of the bullet points. Revert the interim modification to the evidence provided, or make it clear that the evidence was modified post action, post archiving. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

Hi Scottywong

Hey, I don't mind refactoring my comment, but I put the comment there for a reason. Let's try and follow Talk Page Guidelines here. I'm not a fan of Sarek. Many times I've seen him aggressively pursue an editor, including myself, for something that most editors would try and work out. I agree that KW was mouthing off, but I don't see the point in becoming a Talk Page Stalker and making sure not one more word is uttered. It just seems like a lot of effort was expended by him in order to shut up some guy who didn't agree with him. Your intentions might be pure, but it seems like a big conflict of interest for the guy who is the target of scorn, and looking over the list that Sarek compiled, over half were clearly directly pointed at his actions in the role of an administrator. Even Sarek in his opening admits that there is justifiable venting, but we never bother to define that, and simply go after the perp. Just seems like the block is being used to punish the person for complaining about the way tools were used, rather than really about protecting Wikipedia. But hey who knows. -- Avanu (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not a talk page, therefore I'm not sure how Talk Page Guidelines apply. The section was archived, so continuing to comment outside of the archives doesn't make sense. Either start a new section or appeal to the editor who archived it. In any case, I have unarchived the section and restored your comments, as it's clear that some users would like to continue discussing. I strongly disagree that KW's talk page looks like the talk page of a user who is appealing a block as opposed to uncontrollable ranting. Anyway, feel free to continue the discussion at ANI if you feel the need. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume the same protocols on discussion apply to AN/I as to other discussion pages, sorry for the imprecise use of the guideline. And no, I don't care for a drawn out discussion on it, I suppose I'm just saying in an argument, usually we walk away and let the other person fume and rant and then come back later and work together. It seems counterproductive to follow the person and start making notes of all their comments when it is just as easy to walk away and let them have time to come to terms with their emotions. That's why I kind of think Sarek makes these things worse because he won't simply engage the person in a positive way. I'm sure this will happen again and we'll be in the same boat, because its happened before too. But I won't labor the point any longer. Have a great day, and hope to see you while editing sometime. -- Avanu (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)