User talk:Scottywong/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Thanks for !voting

Syzygium malaccense, Mangunharjo Orchard, Dlingo, Yogyakarta.jpg at my successful RFA
Thank you, Scottywong, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. Thanks for all your tool work, although to be honest I'd probably have a better chance at reading Sanskrit than the above table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


You have a request at RFPP. [1] Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello. I believe you are the closing admin to UFC 148. I just wanted to let you know that I filed a review here: WP:DRV#UFC_148 like you advised me to. Gamezero05 20:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Square Kilometre Array.

Does the article Square Kilometre Array fall under WP:FUTURE, therefore render it eligible for deletion? I thank you. Yours, — KC9TV 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion (after a very brief look) is that it doesn't fall under FUTURE, which says that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I believe the information about the array is verifiable and of sufficiently wide interest. -Scottywong| comment _ 22:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I thank you. Yours, — KC9TV 12:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: Sir — Would you be interested in putting the "COI" tag back on (and was that ever justified?), and would you also be interested in running a "CheckUser", on the User:Skatelescope and the User:PRL42 (C.o.I./sock-puppetry). I thank you. I rest, your servant. — KC9TV 12:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea if the COI tag is justified, and I don't know who any of those users are. I also don't have checkuser permissions. You'd have to file a report at WP:SPI to get someone to do a checkuser. -Scottywong| talk _ 13:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I see. I thank you. I am your most humble and most obedient servant. — KC9TV 16:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Scottywong. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.
Message added 14:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm wondering if SnotBot could do something like this. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Afd Stats - Potential SPAs

What is your algorithm for determining "Potential SPAs"? Simply a low edit count? That's all it seems to be to me, as far as I can tell; but that is a silly criteria for an SPA. A low edit count user need not be an SPA, and an SPA could have a high edit count. Better approaches might be:

  • look at all the pages they've touched, have they made lots of edits to a few pages (SPAish) or a few edits to many pages (not SPAish)
  • count which WikiProjects the pages they edit belong to, an editor who edits pages belonging to many different projects is probably not an SPA (although, an editor whose interests are narrow isn't necessarily an SPA either)
  • edits to meta-pages like AFDs. An SPA is unlikely to contribute to many AFDs, likely only one or a few associated with their purpose. An editor who contributes to many AFDs, especially AFDs on multiple topic areas, is unlikely to be an SPA

Maratrean (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If I did that for every user, it would take an hour to analyze a single AfD. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 15:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not label them "low edit count" users? "Potential SPAs" seems misleading, since it suggests there is more evidence of their SPA-ness than simply "Low edit count users", when it appears there is not. Maratrean (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That thing you did

Hi Scotty. That thing you did appears to have solved that problem we had. (I hope you understand what I mean). Many thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Let me know if you see anything pop up in the future. -Scottywong| spout _ 13:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination)

Would you please reconsider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination), or at least relisting it? The article has zero independent sources, and the "per other person" comments don't address this. - SudoGhost 16:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a previous AfD with consensus to keep, and the second AfD ended with 10 editors arguing that the sources are sufficient, and 3 editors arguing that they're not sufficient (including you, and discounting TallNapoleon's nonsensical vote). I'm sorry, but you lost this one. Time to accept and move on. -Scottywong| spout _ 16:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
So you closed it based on a vote? I'm sorry, but I thought it was a consensus, not a popularity contest. "As per some other person" and the number of editors that commented aren't a discussion, and a previous AfD isn't a determining factor. There is no consensus here to keep, just a bunch of "per last time" and "per other person" comments and "Sources X and Y are good" without explaining why, despite explanations to the contrary. - SudoGhost 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
There's actually quite a bit more discussion from the keep voters than the "per other person" comments you give them credit for. Perhaps you need to read the discussion again with open eyes. Just because someone doesn't get the last word in an argument doesn't mean they're wrong or they've conceded the argument. Additionally, consider that there is very little discussion from the delete voters on many of the sources in the article that are not available online (I'm just pointing that out, not inviting that discussion to take place on my talk page). In any case, there is virtually no way I would consider closing this any other way (and even if I would, it would be a no consensus close, which of course defaults to keep). Feel free to take it to DRV, but I think we both know that would be an enormous waste of time. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, the waste of time is your closing the AfD with this very poor "voting" rationale, because it's only going to result in a 3rd nomination for deletion. I'm not interested in a "last word" discussion, which is why I asked you to relist it instead of closing it, to see if they had some rebuttal for the lack of independence of the sources, because as it stands the discussion is a few keep rationales based on a refuted claim of independence that isn't backed up because you closed it before they could respond. Yet this is somehow a consensus to keep? That isn't how a consensus works. - SudoGhost 17:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This is indeed a very poor closing rationale, if Scottywong comments on a so-called absence of discussion on non-online source, showing his lack of understanding of the discussion (indeed, the non-notability of the sources are obvious and that's why it wasn't commented by "keepers" or "deleters" alike) and then refuses to elaborate on it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If you believe the close was wrong, then take it to DRV and see what everyone else thinks. -Scottywong| express _ 17:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Scottywong.

I see that you have closed the AfD on Ankheg as "keep", but I don't understand this result, as you don't provide any explanation. Indeed, AfDs are not votes and their result are based on "the strength of the arguments" and not head count. The same can be read on WP:AFDEQ which states that "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself".

And I don't think that the arguments of the "keep" side have any strength. My nomination was based on the fact that the sources Ankheg has are not independent of the subject, in violation of WP:GNG which requires for a notable topic to have "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Ankheg is a fictional creature in the Dungeons and Dragons game, and most of the sources come from TSR and Wizards of the Coast, the official Dungeons and Dragons publishers, these sources are thus not independent. The main point of disagreement in this AfD was whether the other sources in the article were independent or not. Over the course of the discussion, it has been established that the sources are not independent and are in fact supplementary game guides needing the official game books to play, and a separate game belonging to one of the D&D copyright owners, which doesn't even provide any comments on the topic itself, but which is a primary source (the game plot, devoid of any analytic or evaluative claim, is thus not even a proper source) [2][3]. An analysis confirmed by one of the "keep" supporters [4] who had previously manifested his intention to change his vote to delete [5].

The "keep" supporters might have been more numerous, but they failed to satifyingly answer to notability concerns, particularly about the affiliation of the sources to the subject or its creator [6]. If AfDs are not based on head count, then it shouldn't matter how many people claim sources are independent despite being shown solid proof of the contrary.

Thus, I don't think your close on "keep" brings a satisfying conclusion to a discussion of such length and to the "delete" arguments. As you don't elaborate on it, I don't even know if you did a head count, or if you really considered the arguments of the "keep" side stronger (and if that's the case, why exactly ?). I thus ask you to reconsider your closure: overturning it to "delete" only seems appropriate to me given the strength of the arguments for deletion, but at worst a relist would allow to strengthen a consensus for deletion, as the AfD was allowed to live for one extra day, and this day brought 3 new "delete" comments (more are sure to come).Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisting would not seem to be an option, as there is plenty of participation already (see WP:RELIST). Relisting isn't to be used as a tool to get your way (i.e. AfD's are not relisted over and over again until your preferred version of consensus appears). I did not provide any closing comments as the consensus is obvious and crystal clear. Please see my comments above for further explanation. -Scottywong| communicate _ 17:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Consensus =/= vote, and that is crystal clear. And 3 more participants appeared yesterday, I disagree with your assertion that the discussion was over.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussions are over after 7 days, as long as there is sufficient participation. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 17:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Holy moly guys, stop yapping and take him to DRV if you disagree, where I assure you, you will lose, as the close is sound.--Milowenthasspoken 18:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Holy moly, I can't believe I didn't hurry up and "lose"! When you put it that way, I'm not exactly eager to take that...advice. I arrived late to the AfD, and it was closed before a discussion could weigh or refute any comments that the article is truly lacking any independent sources, that's my only issue. If a discussion and consensus determined that this was not the case, I wouldn't have an issue, but it was closed without comments to that effect. However, if it's really "the best thing" to close a discussion based on a timeline as opposed to a discussion, I'll wait for some improvements to be made to the article's references, and if those are not forthcoming, nominate it for deletion again due to lack of discussion on the current AfD. You may think arbritary time limits are more important than a discussion at Articles for Discussion, but I do not hold to that. - SudoGhost 19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, wait six months and bring it to another AfD if you want at that time, making the case for why the two prior AfDs were wrong. The world won't be harmed. Meantime, however, you might consider helping me complete articles on every Lieutenant Governor of Nebraska. I've done about 10 so far.--Milowenthasspoken 01:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Nebraska has governors? I thought it was ruled by fierce and unforgiving Warlord-Rulers. :) - SudoGhost 01:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Snotbot message in error?

Hello. I got a message about removing an AfD tag from Snotbot (which directed me here). The tag I removed was one I put in. I removed it as a part of withdrawing my nomination of the article for deletion. No opinions in support of the deletion had been posted. Was there another procedure I should have followed instead? --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The AfD needs to be closed before the template is removed from the article. Simply withdrawing isn't quite enough. See WP:NAC and WP:AFD/AI for instructions on how to close an AfD. Overall, no big deal. -Scottywong| express _ 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jetset Magazine

Why did you delete content on my talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't your talk page, it was the talk page of a non-existent article. Article talk pages without a corresponding article are deleted under WP:CSD#G8. If you're looking to create a new article, try Articles for creation. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orville (cat)

The finding of "overwhelming consensus" seems mistaken — please reconsider. As an alternative to the tiresome drama of DRV, please userfy the article and I shall make something of it using numerous reliable sources and additional content. Warden (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "More sources" would not actually address the reason for the consensus to delete, though, so such a recreation will see an immediate speedy tag by yours truly. The reason I was coming here though is to ask Scottywong out of curiosity, what did you mean by the "Kinda wish I hadn't read the article" part? Tarc (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I just meant that my stomach turned at the thought of installing motors inside of your dead pet for the purpose of turning it into a helicopter. Anyway, the discussion was split 70/30 in favor of deletion, and the quality of the arguments was high. For a contentious discussion, this is an unusually strong consensus. I would have been hauled off to DRV a lot quicker had I closed it as no consensus. I don't have a strong objection to userfying the article, but I'm curious what your plan is to overcome the main deletion arguments provided at the AfD. Per Tarc above, simply increasing the quantity of sources is probably not the answer. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I make the headcount 14:7 as Drmies seemed to be in the keep camp. The quality of argument was quite low in some cases as some editors seemed to think this was an internet meme and this showed that they didn't really understand the topic. My plan to develop the article was outlined in the discussion: "A sensible way forward using ordinary editing, rather than deletion, would be...". That's not the only possibility; I could easily write a suite of articles which incorporate some or all of this material. Warden (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Colonel, sorry if I wasn't clear. My stomach turns at the thought that such topics are deemed of encyclopedic value. Then again, I've seen so much crap recently that occasionally I throw in the towel. Drmies (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Drmies, surely you have better things to do than seeking out those you don't like. -Scottywong| babble _ 13:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  ? I like the Colonel a whole lot, as a matter of fact. Also, I am not here because of you but because of the conversation. You're an admin now: time to stop engaging in vendettas, here and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In that case, my apologies. I am tired of people ganging up on others, and I am still hoping that you are not one of the Malleus bashers who seek him out and add, rather gratuitously, drama-increasing commentary. BTW, on the cat copter, I agree completely with the result of that AfD, reference to which was made on my talk page by another editor. See my talk page, "Orville (cat)". Drmies (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • My stomach turned as well. I agree with Warden that the consensus wasn't "overwhelming", but I guess that's just quibbling. The outcome remains the same.--Milowenthasspoken 17:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree there was a consensus to delete, but I think the closing rationale can be improved. Scottywong, would you extend your rationale using your comment above ("split 70/30 in favor of deletion, and the quality of the arguments was high"). If this AfD is brought to DRV, it will allow DRV participants to see more easily how you came to the conclusion of "delete". Thanks! Cunard (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This would pretty clearly be a waste of time to bring to DRV, but I've added to the closing statement nonetheless. -Scottywong| chat _ 18:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Warden can have the article if he wants it. I'll wait for more exhibitions or a confirmed sale at €100,000. CallawayRox (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done User:Colonel Warden/Orville (cat) -Scottywong| babble _ 18:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Someone else has already started on the KunstRAI so I'll expand this in one of the other directions. Warden (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sune Rose Wagner: Removing AfD template

I responded to your message in my talk page. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

F1 Vandal

Another one slipped through. Something to do with the fact it was the Qualifying table this time? Thanks for all of this. Pyrope 01:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, updated the filter. -Scottywong| chat _ 15:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
And another one. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
And another. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, made another update that should prevent those types of edits. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 15:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An error in the tool

Hi SW! I was going through my work and I found few pages in which I haven't participated. The links are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fullbright and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seraph (band). In this two, I only "relisted" but didn't vote but still their names are there in the row. I haven't checked all the links so don't know how many more false links are there. Can you fix this error? Cheers! →TSU tp* 07:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I'll take a look at it today, I think I know what's causing it. -Scottywong| chatter _ 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Insulting statement you made

"Just be a civilized human being and you won't have to worry about it [being blocked]."

I'm sure there's never been a bad block made by a rogue Admin abusing the mop. For sure. Those editors blocked were simply not civilized human beings. Simple. I'm glad you cleared this up for everyone. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Corollary to your statement

"I've been here over 5 years and haven't had a single one [block]". Therefore, you are a civilized human being. (Simple logic. Right?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Update request

Any chance you can update my user subpage. Also, any chance you can expand your bot to produce summaries like those of User:ArkyBot/AFD summary/all and User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/All? I saw User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention, but it also would be nice to know where the AfDs are that have the most participants (e.g., where the action is at). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That user subpage was a precursor to my toolserver tool which does the same thing. So, I no longer update those types of user subpages. I like your suggestions about an AfD summary for all open AfD's, but I'm a bit busy lately so that may not happen immediately. Feel free to remind me in a few weeks if I forget about it. -Scottywong| comment _ 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. The top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters includes those with little participation (which User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention now shows) and those with lots of participation (which sometime happens for very important Wikipedia issues, heavy SPA participations, heated discussions, etc.). Maybe for the ones with lots of participation, you can expand it to the top 25 XfD discussions instead of just the top 25 AfD. Some Category, MfD, Copyright, Template, DRV, and AfD discussions are pivotal in how Wikipedia will go forward in certain areas and it would be a good thing for people to give their two cents in those rather than miss an opportunity to voice their opinion because they weren't aware of the discussion until it was over. afdstats.html toolserver tool: Some suggestions for the afdstats.html toolserver tool: 1. change "vote" to "iVote" wherever it appears (some get very annoyed at seeing vote and cry "It's not a vote!." The iVote thing seems to ease that tension somewhat); and 2. if possible, add an option to have the results automatically posted to a user subpage "AfD stats". For example, it would be nice if my afdstats.html toolserver tool run would be posted at User:Uzma Gamal/AfD stats. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree that well-attended AfD's are necessarily in need of urgent attention, however I do agree that it could be useful in some situations to see where they are. As for "vote" vs. "!vote", it's a silly semantic thing, but I usually include a little disclaimer somewhere on the page that mentions that these stats should be taken with a grain of salt, and pure vote counts don't necessarily mean anything. Finally, having the tool post your stats to a user subpage wouldn't be terribly useful, because it would post a snapshot of your voting stats at that time only. Next time you contribute to AfD, they'd be outdated. Instead, why not just provide a link to the tool which shows your up-to-date voting stats? -Scottywong| gab _ 15:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
All good points. Thanks for the reply. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles for free

In light of our disagreement at Template:User volunteer regarding the need for Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles for free, I have started a discussion for the category. I want to make sure, in the event that you'd like to participate, that you are aware of the discussion – hence this notification. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer

Thanks for your great analyzer, but there seems to be an issue that you might want to check. There is a discussion at WP:ANI where user X claims user Y is hounding them, and Y asked what tool could be used to check what pages they had both edited. I thought I would check that using a couple of tools. I forget why (I might have been wondering about the differences from what I saw in your tool and Intersect Contribs), but I decided to use some local text massaging of the raw data from each user's contribs.

Compared with Interaction Analyzer, my analysis found 16 extra pages (including 7 extra articles) edited by both users this year (from 2012-01-01). For example, Madurai (history) is not on your list. That might have something to do with the fact, as mentioned by your tool, that one of the users has over 50,000 edits? This is just FYI, no need for a reply. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason those pages don't show up in my tool is because the tool is focused on showing pages that both editors have edited within a short time of each other (i.e. pages on which they have likely interacted with one another). I forget exactly where it cuts off, but I think it might be around a week. In other words, if both editors haven't edited the page within a week of each other, that page won't show up in the tool. In the article you reference above, the minimum time between edits is 14 days. It's possible to change that limit (or give you control of the limit via a parameter in the URL), and if that's something you'd like to see, let me know. Otherwise, there are other tools out there which will simply return all of the pages the users have in common (see also this one). -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. However you might like to tweak the wording to indicate that point (it's great that the text at the top of the report sets out in plain English what is shown). Perhaps something like

Only pages where at least two of the editors have made an edit within a week of each other are listed.

Thanks for the other links. I won't need talkback if you reply. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello S. I wanted to make you aware that it looks like your edit at ANI was removed here [7]. I don't think that SS did this on purpose. I have had the experience over the last few months where if two editors hit save at the same time odd things like this can occur and we don't get an edit conflict message. It might have even been restored while I typed this but I thought I would let you know. MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that and re-posted the message. Happens from time to time, especially on ANI. -Scottywong| converse _ 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Snotbot/AfD report suggestion

I've noticed that a few malformed AfD nominations are slipping by if they are transcluded but are missing the standard AfD formatting, they appear as comments to another discussion in the log, and can be overlooked when it comes to closing/relisting. If no one checks, the problem can go unnoticed until the AfD shows up on the month old AfD reports. Would it make sense for Snotbot to check for still open AfD discussions that have not been edited in 10 (should have been relisted if nothing else) or 14 (backlogs for relisting almost never get that long) days and add them to the report it generates to serve as another failsafe for detecting a problem before the problem goes for an entire month? Monty845 23:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Snotbot checks all pages in CAT:AFD. If the AfD is so malformed that it is not even in that category (i.e. if someone creates a subpage of WP:AFD and adds some random content to it), then Snotbot doesn't have a way to know that it exists. Are these the types of malformed AfD's that the bot is missing? -Scottywong| verbalize _ 23:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, they wouldn't be in the cat, so I guess it wouldn't work. Didn't know what mechanism the bot was using to identify the nominations. Thanks for the info. Monty845 03:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


YGM :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any emails, you sure it sent? -Scottywong| verbalize _ 20:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, haven't received a copy. I'll re-send in a few minutes.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Re-sent.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC) said it sent, but I haven't received a copy of it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you get it?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Replied.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't exactly the same as the previous time, but thank you.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi Scotty. Was just looking through today's closing log; were you aware that WP:RELIST recommends against relisting more than twice? Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There were recently a handful of special cases that accidentally got transcluded to the wrong log on their second relist (they got transcluded to the 2011 log instead of 2012), so I decided to relist most of them a third time. -Scottywong| prattle _ 14:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC 148 Unprotection

The page that I am requesting for unprotection is actually a REDIRECT PAGE. Here is the link to that page: I went to DRV and it was decided by an admin that I should move my UFC 148 stand-alone article from my sandbox to mainspace. Here is the link to the deletion review decision: The problem I have is that the current page "UFC 148" is being taken up by that protected redirect page that I posted the link to above. I'd also like to ask for unprotection for another redirect page "UFC 148: Silva vs. Sonnen II" so that I can get that to redirect to "UFC 148" instead of the "2012 in UFC events" summary article that it currently redirects to. Thanks.  Gamezero05  talk  18:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you've made the same request at User talk:Lankiveil and you're currently discussing it there. I'm going to leave this decision to Lankiveil. -Scottywong| yak _ 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I was told by Dennis Brown to take it to you, the person who originally protected the page.  Gamezero05  talk  21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC 148

I unprotected this page that you protected via a request at RFPP, after a DRV finding that endorsed your close, but decided that a recreation was acceptable. See RFPP for more info, I just wanted to give you a heads up. Dennis Brown - © 00:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't really have time to look into it enough yesterday. -Scottywong| gossip _ 13:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I barely did, RFPP was backlogged pretty much all day, and this was a bit convoluted with DRV that closed, then reclosed, had to make sure I didn't participate at the AFD, etc., but figured you would have done the same here. Dennis Brown - © 14:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Scottywong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

F1 vandal

Hi, so I would like to know if the abuse filter you made for the F1 vandal is getting more hits and if he/she is bypassing the filter now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been over 250 hits total, but the last one was 5 days ago. I haven't been monitoring the F1 articles, but I haven't received any reports that the filter is being bypassed. -Scottywong| squeal _ 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Quantum fiction

I'm sorry your decision came down this way with regard to this non-existent "genre". I regret that my arguments were not sufficiently persuasive. The "evidence" presented was the classic example of synthesis by google; despite the claims of a tiny coterie of s.p.a.s, there is no there there. If this article were actually to be cleaned up (which the s.p.a.s will do their best to prevent), there would be almost nothing remaining. I do hope you will keep an eye on it. (This whole farce has roots which reach back to the era before spam killed Usenet.)

I gather you are not a big reader of Terry Pratchett? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, I can only evaluate the arguments that others have made at the AfD, not inject my own personal opinion. I have actually read Terry Pratchett, but not for a long time, perhaps 15 years ago. -Scottywong| express _ 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Guideline on automated editing

I think we sorely need a unified guideline written that covers the points you made there. Atm, from what I can tell, it's spread wide over various guidelines.

If you're interested in collaborating on one, please let me know. - jc37 14:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

mail call

Hello, Scottywong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Could do with some advice. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


I am not aware if this has been discussed or not but it will be much appreciated if the bot comments are done with a small font like the deletion sorting notice.

This is just a suggestion, would like to hear your opinion --DBigXray 14:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable request.  Done -Scottywong| babble _ 18:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice on turning a redirect back into an article

Hi Scotty, hope you can help.

On 2 April this year you closed a deletion proposal on Mundane astrology with this comment:

The result was merge to Astrology and/or History of astrology. —SW— talk 23:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. I was not editing WP at that time.

Although talk page of the article advised that the content be merged in the main astrology page, whoever did the merge reduced the content down to a couple of sentences and put it into the History of astrology page. Recently I did some editorial work on the History of astrology page, which removed the inserted comments because they had no relevancy to the topic of that page. Mundane astrology is a technique of astrology, a certain type of application, not a historical event.

It was after making the edits on the history page and running the link-checker script that I became aware that there was a circular redirect going on. At the bottom of every astrology-project page there is a link to an article called Mundane astrology, for which there is now no content. This subject is ratet as being one of 14 pages (out of 633) which has top priority for that project, so rather than remove the template link and cause a big problem for all the astrology project pages that reference this term, I decided to turn the redirect back into an article, using newly developed text that was free of its previous issues. The first edit here, gave the content exactly as it was when I removed it from the history page, and this is how it looked after I did some development work, hoping to continue with more. Before this, I read through the help pages and saw there was no reason why a page which had previously been deleted could not be reintroduced with better content.

But now another editor is saying that because the consensus of the discussion then was to merge and redirect; I am not able to redevelop the content into a new page on this subject. I have tried to explain everything to the editor and have asked him to undo the reversion himself (to avoid accusations of edit-warring) but he is saying I have to put all of the newly developed content into the astrology page first - rathet that the History of astrology page where it was originally placed - so that it will get a better review because there are more editors on that page. This is just silly because there is no other content on the techniques of astrology on that page, and this is just one of many branches astrology has, though generally considered the most important. So the point of all this is to ask if there is a noticeboard or place which deals with these issues, who can confirm whether it's OK for me to recreate an important page with new content without having to go through rigmorals that will generate a lot more problems than they solve. Hope you can help. Thanks -- Zac Δ talk! 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the material you've written can't be included in one of the existing astrology articles rather than insisting on having its own article, however keep in mind that I don't know the first thing about astrology. The circular redirects generally get cleaned up by bots after awhile, so you probably don't need to worry about it. I would encourage you to incorporate your material into existing astrology articles. If you're dead set on re-creating the mundane astrology article, then I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:DRV with a link to a revision that shows what you're rewritten. If you can show that the concerns in the last AfD have somehow been overcome, then you might find a consensus that there should be a standalone mundane astrology article. Good luck. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I had thought about that, but since the result of the deletion was to merge and redirect and not merge and delete, I wasn't sure if that would be the right place. For the sake of what remnants were kept it would have been a whole lot simpler if the article had been deleted, so it could have been created afresh. Understand this is not your subject but the arguments for this article are very strong. Suffice to say we're talking about something with a known 4000 year history that lies at the root of the first attempts to codify astronomical information and has influenced calendrical development, social history, cultural interchange and the decisions of kings. The old crappy rubbish didn't do its job, unfortunately. Thanks again for the advice. If the editor maintains his position I'll initiate this tomorrow. -- Zac Δ talk! 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mundane astrology

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mundane astrology. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Zac Δ talk! 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Not sure whether you need this or not, but will place it here anyway, to be on the safe-side. Still a little concerned that this is not a review of a deleted page, but it's probably a very unusual situation. Thanks, again -- Zac Δ talk! 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Thank you for deeper and more careful analysis on consensus. By the way, how were my arguments? --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you had a lot of comments at that AfD, but overall I think you got it right. This is one of those uncommon edge cases where the article (probably) passes WP:GNG but still shouldn't be a standalone article. That's why GNG includes the key word "presumed". -Scottywong| talk _ 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
Seven years on WP and this is the first time I've felt compelled to give a Barnstar. this had to be a difficult closure but you have have restored my faith in Wikipedia. Thanks for reading through all those arguments and making a decision! William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -Scottywong| confess _ 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


I noticed a problem on your talkpage: not enough kittens.

Arcandam (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Can you please userfy this for a DRV consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't currently a DRV for this article. -Scottywong| comment _ 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I am considering a DRV. Maybe I should wait for the Bieber on Twitter outcome, but I am concerned that there may have been some procedural oddities in relisting this twice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Another procedural issue would be all the "delete" votes that actually seemed to be suggesting a merge without explaining why we would need to delete the article to implement such a merger. While people tried to argue BLP for deleting the article, no BLP issues existed that would warrant a "delete and merge" result even if there were any BLP issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The second relisting seemed to be more in the articles favor than against it, by Tom Morris anyhow; but that's beside the point. I'm not interested in a round two, but so long as the article is deleted, Scotty, you mentioned in the closing that it could be restored so that some information could be moved to another article; can that be done? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
In the Beaber deletion discussion, Hawkeye, says that if an article is deleted under wp;not, the material in the article may not be used anywhere in the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Time Magazine [8] covers the twitter not just the person or something he did with twitter, it making their Top 10 Celebrity Twitter Feeds. Other coverage was there about it being the most popular twitter account for a time, and whatnot. There was coverage in the article about the twitter account itself, not just various events that occurred involving it. Dream Focus 01:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Only one review? Where are other reviews with a general overview on account as a whole? --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    They got deleted and I don't have a photographic memory. If it gets userfied as TonyTheTiger request I'll point them out to you. Dream Focus 07:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Only ones that are not reviews about only one specific message or a specific person himself? --George Ho (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Yes. Coverage for being the most popular twitter account, when it had that. Dream Focus 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Any review that has less to do with popularity of an account and of a person and more about an account itself? Can you find it? --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    The article has references to back up their claims at the start of it. "became the first Twitter account with 1 million followers" seems like a notable achievement. "The account spent more than 13 months as the world's most-followed Twitter account." " As of 11 June 2012, Kutcher ranked 19th with over 11 million followers." News coverage of these achievements prove the account itself is notable. Dream Focus 10:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Scotty, whats up with my userfication request?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Where do I go if the admin is ignoring a userfication request? AN? Help Desk?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It says he's busy at the top of the page, you know. While that may not be the best time to close big AfDs, still, there's no big rush, is there? Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, there's no way you can know Scotty's "ignoring" your request...and btw, it's the 4th of July in the U.S. Pretty big holiday. Some of us have lives outside of Wikipedia.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Indeed, it's really probably a better idea to let the page owner respond to the threads here, rather than continue on without waiting for his response. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. See User:TonyTheTiger/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. Sorry for the delay in response, I was away from a computer all day yesterday. -Scottywong| speak _ 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree that the second relist was strange, but I don't think that it invalidates the AfD in any way. Let me know when you're done with the userfied article, as I don't think it needs to hang around for an extended period of time. -Scottywong| confess _ 17:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me just say you made a terrible decision on this one. Everyking (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. A consensus was determined within Wikipedia guidelines, and whether you agree with it or not, you should not complain about it. As you can see above, some editors went forward with new measures, such as userfication, but the AfD debate in question is a dead horse. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of userfication, I do not see anything else either important or significant. It's all "he said", "She said", "they said" on Twitter. Reaction toward messages are not that stellar and/or intriguing. Even numbers of followers are insufficient to prove greater impact. --George Ho (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We're in agreement here: I simply think these "X on Twitter" articles are unnecessary and are indiscriminate collections of information. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Cannot delete it twice, surely

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter is listed twice, on July 3 and July 4. Snotbot was the last 'person' to be working in that vicinity. Anarchangel (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)At 23:54 the nominator attempted to tranclude the discussion into the July 3 log, but did so incorrectly resulting in no transclusion. At 00:12 the bot noticed it was not transcluded in a log, and added it to the July 4th log. Then at 02:10 an editor noticed the failed attempt to tranclude and fixed it. So really when the bot made the edit it was correct, it obviously couldn't anticipate another editor completing the attempt to tranclude it in the earlier log. I don't see a harm to having it be in both, other then perhaps confusing relisters. Monty845 05:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't suppose it would hurt to have it listed at only July 3? That is what I did. Anarchangel (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like this was a strange set of circumstances. An AfD should only be transcluded to one log page at a time, and it seems like you guys have already taken care of it. Thanks. -Scottywong| squeal _ 17:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


I appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

1RR talk

Hello Scotty. Thanks for closing the last thread on ANI speedily. Can I just say that I had to burst out laughing when I saw this[9]!!! That is to say, the left-hand summary in which I am being given an explanation of the indefinite article! I was unable to deliver my post because of the pending edit war but I wanted to add that there was probably no need for me to make the "revert back" to the other revision, even heavyweight zero-telorance admins must apply WP:COMMONSENSE. But out of curiousity, is it really still classed as a revert when you fix a spelling or make a punctuation amendment that was wrongly inserted? I honestly thought we only consider matters where content itself has hit the spotlight. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it quickly and thought it was "an international" rather than "a partially recognized". A revert is a revert, unless you're reverting obvious vandalism. Grammar mistakes are not vandalism. Have a look at WP:NOT3RR for a list of reverts that don't count towards edit warring. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. So Monty was right, I committed a technical error. I should by all accounts be blocked since I was on a final warning. If it happens it happens, I appreciate you may not but I've been in communication with three other admins these past hours. I'm surprised that grammatical/spelling howlers are not on that list because their correction is evidently constructive for the article. But as the comment states, "if in doubt, don't"! Right now I doubt everything on the site!! :) Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Scottywong. You have new messages at Jfd34's talk page.
Message added 10:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Close rationale

Hi. You based your close rationale Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter on WP:INDISCRIMINATE because participants gave "many examples of other potential topics that receive a lot of coverage in reliable sources, but otherwise would not be suitable for an article." This suggests that your rationale did not have to do with the article under discussion. You did not appear to note or respond to Tom Morris's observation that:

". . . Then there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure that this works too well either. I'm not wild about the way the article is structured, but I cannot for the life of me see how that based on the sources used, one can honestly say that it is indiscriminate. It covers the stated topic perfectly well enough. . . . Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)"

I was wondering if you could respond to that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My wording may have been unclear. I didn't mean that the article was in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE because of the examples that were given. I simply meant to demonstrate that it is possible (but not common) for a subject to pass GNG and still not be appropriate for an article. As for Tom Morris' comments, I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. He's not really explaining why the article is not indiscriminate, he's just saying that he can't figure out how it is. If you're asking me to explain why the article is indiscriminate, you're asking the wrong person. My job as the closer is not to inject my own opinion, but rather to analyze the opinions of others. Search for the word "indiscriminate" and you'll find other editors who make that argument. -Scottywong| chatter _ 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the basis for your close that the article was "indiscriminate.," since its not in your close rationale, except for the statement above and the rationale has no discussion of the arguments. Are you saying, here, although you did not say it in your rationale, that the consensus is that this article is indiscriminate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that an argument was made that the article is indiscriminate, and that argument was not adequately refuted by anyone. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I see you have now included NOTDIARY in your close. Which parts of that and indiscrimante do you base your decision upon?Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
While an admin should not be injecting his own opinion on the subject, you do have to give a reason for deletion and if it isn't WP:INDISCRIMINATE, then it would appear that you gave no reason for deleting the article other than "more delete votes", which is not a valid reason. There are quite a few articles where I have used WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a deletion argument, but this is pretty blatantly a case where it was being misused to wikilawyer around WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other invalid arguments, such as the one offered by the nom (the ever-popular "unencyclopedic" argument).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. Where exactly did I say that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was not the reason for deletion? I thought I made that quite clear actually. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
All I can say then is that I am disappointed. You chose to side with the worst possible argument for deletion in that discussion save for the fart and cruft arguments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, there can hardly be a more forceful refutation to the claim that the article is indiscriminate then Tom Morris's above and many agreed with him, as indiscriminate cannot, in Tom's words, be honestly applied to the article under discussion, certainly not by reading the text of the article and the text of that policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Chiming in separately here, but I think citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE was a flaw in your close, because that policy is actually very specific about what is indiscriminate, and nothing in that policy supports the inclusion of the article as "indiscriminate": it's not a summary-only listing of a work, not a lyrics database, and not a listing of statistics. I see that you've gotten some accolades above from some who like your close, but that doesn't change the fact that the part of NOT you cited says nothing that would support this close. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A Twitter account is a "work" retold by news; events involving a Twitter account is retold in Wikipedia, which could be a summary-only collaboration about events by Twitter account. How is the article neither? --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
No, a twitter account is not a work. And no one made that argument that it is, unless I am missing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I just implied it there without explicitly saying that it is. If it is not a work, what do you call it then? --George Ho (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats what I thought, no one made that argument.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Even assuming for the sake of argument that a twitter account would be a "work", if a work is retold by independent RS'es that retelling is independent RS coverage. If the article had been simply Kutcher's twitter output shoved into a Wikipedia article without external commentary, then that might have applied. In this case, however, various news outlets commenting on the content of the twitter feed. I think it stupid and inconsequential, and more evidence of the failing of Western Civilization... but our job is not to stand in judgment on what pop culture phenomena RS'es choose to highlight. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't retelling news also a definition of retelling soap opera stories in newspapers and mags? --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Those are reliable sources for those shows, and help establish notability per the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I think Devil means, as neither close rationale of indiscriminate or notdairy are supported by consensus, nor by the sources cited in the discussion, nor by the text, than their assertion is difficult to understand or uphold your close. I agree.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Here comes the predictable badgering and whining, WP:INDISCRIMINATE works just fine here. What it boils down to is that the act of tweeting is simply too insignificant to be worthy of a full article attention. You are selectively culling everything a famous person says via one medium and putting it into article form, i.e. indiscriminate. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

... Except that it doesn't. Indiscriminate lists exactly three sorts of information. You want it to say "Not twitter" along with it? Propose the change and get consensus. Like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the victim of people thinking they understand what it says based on the shortcut, when the reality is much more subtle. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Not only does it not say that but that's not the article that was being discussed.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Guys, at the top of WP:NOT it clearly says "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." So, just because an article doesn't include summary-only descriptions, lyrics, or statistics doesn't mean that it can't possibly be indiscriminate. These are just a few examples. I'd like to respond more thoroughly but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment. -Scottywong| spout _ 23:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE have examples in them. That is what the text means. The enumerations under each major heading (the "sections") are themselves carefully agreed upon, and adding new ones on the fly requires an IAR invocation, rather than just saying "well, it kinda fits here even if it isn't listed", which is what I believe you've done here. Again, there's no reason consensus can't include a NOTTWITTER in the future, but I do not believe that you can assign appropriate policy-based weighting to such a policy before it's been actually enumerated. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I look forward to your further response Scotty. Especially with the lack of textual, citation and consensus support. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that INDISCRIMINATE was being applied indiscriminately in the arguments (o-hohoho), Scotty is right in that the list in the policy isn't (and well shouldn't try to be) exhaustive. The issue more is that WP:IINFO is unbounded. It says indiscriminate collections of info are bad, but doesn't really suggest any defining features of such a thing besides its indiscriminate-ness. If I claimed that the article on Zeppelins was indiscriminate, how would anyone here 'adequately refute' that? Is there a better way than saying 'nuh-uh, it's very discriminate'? If there is, I hope it's in policy somewhere...Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
That's why we check ourselves with reliable sources, and have they treated it as a topic, which all the citations in the discussion showed they did. And the only response was the Wiki should not cover it, which response had no consensus. And, regardless, there is still no actual textual support in the policy, that says this here must be deleted (or really absolutely kept out) - which means the only fallback to rely on is consensus. But here there was no consensus.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
And to be clear, Scottywong isn't the only one who takes an expansivist view of IINFO. TenPoundHammer repeatedly did so, ignored my requests that he use it appropriately, and that refusal was my basis for participation in the RFC/U on him. However, he never said anything remotely as articulate a justification for a view as what Scottywong has already articulated here. I hadn't even considered that interpretation before, and while I disagree with it, it's almost certainly something that should be hashed out at an RfC on WT:NOT rather than here on Scottywong's talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Have to say that I agree WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not meant to include an exhaustive list. The problem is that the policy doesn't apply here because the article in question was not, as Tarc describes, "selectively culling everything a famous person says via one medium and putting it into article form" and, more importantly, that is not the only form the article could take. I pointed to several sources such as this one about Kutcher's Twitter activities that pointed to lasting significance of the subject that was clearly not some variation of "OMG! Kutcher tweeted!" I was not the only one to make such observations yet that argument did not get addressed at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course you see it that way, since the AfD didn't go the way you liek. This is what invariably happens after these sorts of things, the nitpicking and wiki-lawyering and the parsing. Indiscriminate fits just fine here; random blatherings by celebrities are not notable, and trying to pick out one form of the blather and making an article about it is what we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
And no doubt, you are a better person than us Tarc, you would never do something like rehashing your arguments after the fact. Regardless, I agree with Jclemens, the issue regarding IINFO is more an issue for WP:NOT/Talk than Scottywong, and the issue regarding @aplusk is closed for the time being. (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The deletion discussion is closed for the time being but the purpose here is to discuss whether to have a deletion review. I am awaiting Scotty's further response, he said he would give to the concerns expressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
If DRV is needed, should it be a vote-free discussion with the {{not a vote}}? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not used in my experience at DRV - its an Endorse, Overturn, or Re-List with rationale. It also has its own standards so be aware of that going in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I see it that way because it is that way. Kutcher's competition with CNN to be the first account with a million followers in order to promote a charitable cause that pushed other major groups and public figures to donate to said charity, while also prompting coverage of his views on the significance of Twitter itself is more than just "random blatherings" as it clearly points to significance of his Twitter activities that is not inherited from his celebrity. Very few celebrities did with Twitter what Kutcher did with Twitter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, it's time to drop the sticks. Arcandam (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

IndiscriminateDone at random or without careful judgment; Not using or exercising discrimination; Non-selective, random. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is meant to illustrate that not all information that appears in reliable sources is appropriate for use in encyclopedia articles. The examples given in the text of WP:NOT are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather illustrative, as it is not possible to enumerate every category of things that is considered indiscriminate. Is Ashton Kutcher's use of Twitter reported in sources? Of course it is. Is his use of Twitter appropriate for a standalone encyclopedia article? Consensus is that it is not. WP:NOTDIARY was also quoted in the AfD discussion, and it provides further guidance: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person." It would not take much effort to extend that thought to: "Not every Twitter message posted by an otherwise notable person is notable."

So, while I think it would be perfectly appropriate to mention that Kutcher temporarily set a record for number of Twitter followers in Kutcher's bio article and/or in Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, consensus is that a standalone article on that specific subject is not warranted. Details like the following quote — while well-sourced — are trivial, indiscriminate, and (frankly) reminiscent of a fansite: "In May 2011, when he was selected to replace Charlie Sheen on the television show Two and a Half Men Kutcher riddled his twitter following with a message to lead them to the number 2.5: 'What's the square root of 6.25?'".

Hopefully, that answers everyone's questions about my closing rationale and why WP:NOT applies to this article. I believe the closure would hold up at DRV, and I don't plan on reconsidering it. I sincerely hope that it is not necessary to waste more time on the subject at DRV, but if you still disagree with me, that is your option. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything you just said was addressed by me and others during the AfD and since. Indeed the article made it clear this was not just about listing Twitter activities and Twitter statistics, but explaining what impact Kutcher had on and through the social network service. Quite a few people made that point in the AfD and you have so far not given any response to that argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Most unfortunate, Scotty, especially when you did not find consensus in your rationale, and when I specifically asked right after the close you denied such a finding. Rather, the above comment appears to be a super-vote to force consensus. One thing in the article is indiscriminate, and that makes the entire article so? Surely that is untrue. Moreover, even the one quote you rely on does textually have to do with the topic of the article (thus it is not random at all) - whether such a thing would stay in the article is to be left to article development concerning weight (and the other content policies). Your further statement, like your closing statement again fails to address the sources cited in the discussion and in the article that have treated this as a discrete, discriminate topic, including books and respected news outlets in business, media and advertising. Finally, the article did not include "every Twitter message" or anything that even looks like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC) (phrase objected to struck--Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC))
Apologies for speaking on behalf of another, but what part of "I don't plan on reconsidering it" is unclear here? IMO there's little to be gained by continuing this here, so can we just get the inevitable DRV filing over with? Tarc (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask him to reconsider (although it would be right for him to do so IMO). So, I understand all parts of it. I expressed to him my opinion of his further response, especially since I asked him to make the response. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting tactic. You ask me my opinion, I decline to give it to you and clearly state that my opinion doesn't factor into the closure, you continue to press me for my opinion, I give it to you, and then you immediately start screaming "SUPERVOTE!" I think I can safely say I'm done discussing this with you. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 21:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
He says it better than I can. -Scottywong| express _ 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I for one never disputed whether WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be taken beyond the examples given in that section so that is quite irrelevant to me. You have yet to address any of the arguments about why the article was not indiscriminate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of you are making the classic mistake of focussing upon a misleading and largely irrelevant single word in a heading added long after the fact just so that there can be a section heading, rather than the meat of the policy. See User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate and learn your history. Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that any deletion review await the close of the deletion discussions on the similar articles as the evident disagreements over policy application are almost identical (apart form the relisting issue but that is also tied to the difficulty regarding consensus). This administrator has expressed his views and judgement, and no matter how deficient they may appear to some, we should respect and thank him for doing so. I do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

gerry oneill


Gerry O'Neill (Irish: Gearóid Ó Néill) (born on January 6, 1978) is an Northern Irish professional wrestler & radio personality from Omagh. He is best known as the Co-Host of WrestleNight from Florida[1] on WTAN-AM 1340 & The Tan Talk Radio Networkand as one of the founders of Kocosports Media.[2]

O'Neill was trained by Blake Norton and during his time as a professional wrestler he spent stints in the All-Star Wrestling and Celtic Pro Wrestling promotions, where he competed under the ring names of Garry B.Ware, The Fighting Irish, "TFI" Gerry O'Neill and The Northern Star

please re instate the Gerry O'Neill wiki page Hi I see Gerry O'Neill was deleted. I can confirm he was a wreslter under the name gary b ware. Yes he lives in ontario, and yes he did host wrestlenight in flordia, along with Dave dont have to be there to host a radio show you know. He is co founder of and runs this website. the wiki page info on him was all true. How do I know this..he is my husband. please re add him to the wiki page for famous people from omagh thanks wendy oneill (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is presumably based on your CSD#G4 redeletion of Gerry O'Neill persuant to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry O'Neill, a page whose header includes a link about the deletion review process. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bronwyn Wilson redirect

Hello, you recently closed the Bronwyn Wilson AfD as a redirect. Given the relative obscurity of the subject and the potential BLP issues (through a process of original research it appears likely that this person may be the same as one who has admitted to an act of fraud and there is an IP who seems to want to make that connection known). Could you lock the Bronwyn Wilson page so that the BLP issues will not sneak back in with a recreation of the page? Or should I make a formal request at RPP?-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protection is generally not done preemptively, so I doubt your request would be granted at RFPP. My advice would be to watchlist the page, and then contact me (or RFPP) if there is a problematic edit, at which point protecting the page would be a lot more straightforward. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Despite the rather large Ashton Kutcher on Twitter AfD and the resulting two threads on your talk page and the threat of DRV, and whether or not the resulting decision sticks, you took on a task that was making other admins cringe. Good on you for having the balls mops of steel to close that. v/r - TP 19:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Giving credit where it is due, I've seen SW close several problematic AFDs, and this one has to be pretty high on that list, and would echo TP's sentiment here. A million people are tweeting about how it was deleted on Wikipedia now. Maybe I should start an article on that.... Dennis Brown - © 19:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Closing contentious AfD's can be thankless, since 99% of the time you only hear from the people who disagree with you. -Scottywong| yak _ 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I've commented on your AFD Jedi skilz before, but it is one of the things that catches my eye when I see them and I've always thought that is an area you are well suited to, slow, deliberation consensus reading. I'm more of a fireman, dealing with disputes and such, and many of these long AFDs make my head spin. I've yet to jump in there yet. Dennis Brown - © 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you answer this editor's questions?

Scottywong, can you look at User talk:Singularity42#Fuukit and answer this editor's question? I'm on vacation atm, so I'm probably not going to be able to assist with any follow up, and his question is about an article that I nominated for AfD which you deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done -Scottywong| confess _ 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in stats

I hate to bother you with this as you appear to be busy, but I uncovered an inaccuracy on my AfdStats where it is said that I voted to 'keep' Paul Bargas. Actually, I voted to 'delete' the article. Is there any way to fix this kind of error? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Here -Scottywong| yak _ 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to fix that. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Scottywong, I noticed you just blocked Roux for two weeks, with e-mail also blocked.[10] I'm really wondering why, but I presume you're about to post explanations on ANI and on User talk: Roux, so I'll just wait for those. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

So we don't spread discussions over many pages, I will just say I've asked a question on Roux's talk page. Dennis Brown - © 17:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Bwilkins has already lifted the email restriction, which is the primary curiosity. Dennis Brown - © 20:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong...Roux appears to have left the building, claiming he has scrambled his password. It's probably in the best interest of all to just lift the block now.--MONGO 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This block makes absolutely no sense. For you to disappear right after blocking someone who has already declared they have left and have not edited for 14 hours is mind boggling. I'm sure you're about to leave an explanation somewhere, because from what I see this is absolutely unacceptable. AniMate 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Look at Roux's last dozen or so edits. Had Roux not claimed to have scrambled his password, would it have been appropriate to block then? Claiming to have scrambled one's password (a claim which is completely unverifiable by any of us, btw) is not a way to get out of an otherwise deserved block. If he really did scramble his password, then even being indefinitely blocked wouldn't make a difference. If he didn't scramble his password, then he is blocked for an appropriate amount of time. He has a fairly extensive block log, with blocks as long as 1 month, so I figured 2 weeks was appropriate. That's my explanation. I apologize for "leaving the building" shortly after making the block, but sometimes real life intervenes. -Scottywong| comment _ 03:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm not entirely sure how the email got blocked; I didn't intend to do that. Might have been an errant mouse click on my part. I fully agree that blocking email is not appropriate in this case. -Scottywong| prattle _ 03:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I accept that the email bit was inadvertent. The "leaving the building" is unfortunate; if you knew you were soon off, acting would be especially worth avoiding.
But the block is bad. "deserved", "appropriate"? No. I don't care what he fucking said. There was a larger issue re SoV, but that got swept aside. This block only serves to push roux further away, and that's part of the road to project failure. Just unblock him so he's free to login or create a fresh account. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The email was my primary concern. As I said, I've accidentally clicked an extra box at least once, so I understand how that can happen. I'm guessing you understand why we were thinking "wtf?" about it as it didn't make sense as an intentional option. As to the block itself, we can all debate whether it was the best solution or not until the cows come home, but in the end the decision was well within policy and many other admins would have done the same thing. Dennis Brown - © 11:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, that many admins would have done the same thing, then many admins lack the humanity needed to edit this site, and I will, from this moment on, cease to recognize the office of an "administrator" as a legitimate and rightful position and work diligently in word and deed to have it deprecated. I will also call upon others to join me. From this moment on, I do not recognize the legitimacy of any administrator on this site. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't have to like or agree with something to accept the reality of it. I fail to see how refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the administrators is going to accomplish anything, but perhaps it is a lack of imagination on my part. I prefer fixing problems from the inside out as that actually gets results sometimes, but of course, you are welcome to deal with concerns in any way you see fit. Dennis Brown - © 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)