User talk:ScrapIronIV

DYK for Fiat 130 HP

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your diverse, interesting and consistently good contributions thus far. Often, this kind of work goes unnoticed, until now! Cheers. CassiantoTalk 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks! Kyle121101 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the help on the Royal Malaysian Air Force article, and keeping right, much appreciated - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much - I could use it. That one keeps coming back again, and again. Scr★pIron^IV 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For noticing and proactively addressing potential COI-issues editors. LavaBaron (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm just now seeing all of the fallout of the sockpuppet activity on Universe Sandbox ². Great to know you had it under control! Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't even put a bet on that!

At 20:15 on 30 October 2015 you completed an edit on Peppa Pig. A minute later, on the same day, you edited John Wayne. Just how does your mind work? Cassianto^Talk 09:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There are some who would claim it doesn't :-) it was probably me just monitoring my watch list, which is an eclectic mess... Scr★pIron^IV 14:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.

Merry Christmas ScrapIronIV -- samtar ^whisper 21:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Many happy returns! May you have a warm and blessed holiday, with all the people you care most about at your side Scr★pIron^IV 21:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing

OK, so it's not too much to get excited about, but the sub-pages certainly help to clear my shiny new user page of all the clutter. Have a great new year! Cassianto^Talk 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Terrific collection of pictures Wishing you all the best for a happy and prosperous new year! Scr★pIron^IV 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Firefly

Thanks for the revert. I guess I accidentally reverted myself and didn't realize it. Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It happens to us all Happy editing! Scr★pIron^IV 19:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

NetFlix Pakistan

Hi, ITs not a promotional edit, kindly update it/ improve my edit but not revert remove it Here NETFLIX PAKISTAN , its supported with News websites two references then ehy you reverted it , kindly undo your reverts, Thanks ...Jogi 007 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Netflix has recently made a worldwide expansion. Adding a section for an individual country - including promotional language - is unwarranted. No other country has its own section in the article. Scr★pIron^IV 13:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oklahoma Baptist University

Thanks for this. I thought I had removed the whole section. This user won't give up and I'm sure this will happen again. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 15:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it happens a lot around here. SPA accounts pushing an agenda. I've been trying harder to not let it get under my skin... even to letting myself be called all sorts of unsavory names. It gets difficult sometimes. At least in this case, he merely accuses me of being staff for the college. Better than the guy yesterday who called me a "lttle pissant cretin" for being unable to get into a "prestigious" college... Or being called a terrorist, or the "right hand of Zionist" - all too amusing, but gets tiresome. Scr★pIron^IV 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh good lord! I can imagine it's difficult, but at least some give you a good laugh! That's why I try to stay away from the major editing and spas. I don't need that and editing here would likely decrease for me. Lord knows I've gotten tired of some others on here and have almost decided to leave for good because of them. Hope the New Year is treating you well so far! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 15:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - it's why I stick mostly to obvious vandalism, much less contentious. And I rarely edit anything I have a real personal interest in, because then I get too involved. I am glad you have stuck around so far. Maybe a little dedicated vandalism patrol would be a nice break for you - it can be fun! :-D Scr★pIron^IV 15:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowitz Page Edits

What was your logic behind the extensive edits to Shmuly Yanklowitz's page edits? Thank you.

The sources that have been provided to not meet Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Opinion pieces, letters to the editor, Temple Bulletins and newsletters are not sources for an encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 19:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was trying to remove material that I felt did not uphold Wikipedia's policies. An anonymous user repeatedly reverted the edits. I felt this user's edits were not constructive and were attacking the subject, rather than being neutral. Is there way to ensure that the page for Shmuly Yanklowitz is watched so that malicious edits are not so easily added?

It is now on several experienced editors' watchlists, but it might not hurt to go to WP:RFPP and ask for page protection. There is already a report on WP:ANI Scr★pIron^IV 19:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that that particular user has been banned for one week. I am wondering, because they harassed an editor, is there a policy that says the banning should be longer? Or is that standard? Thank you for your help.

It seems a reasonable length of time for someone who is probably unaware of Wikipedia's rules and standards. The blocking Admin is one whose judgement I trust. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Very nice. Thank you for the info.

118.101.61.104

Hi, ScrapIronIV. Just a heads up, users are allowed to remove talk page warnings per WP:BLANKING. You may want to add Template:OW in that case.– Gilliam (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I actually have been adding new warnings for new offenses, and have not restored any old ones - but I do appreciate the heads-up! Scr★pIron^IV 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Sorry for the misunderstanding!– Gilliam (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Thanks for all the work you do - I see your name come up often when on vandal patrol. Scr★pIron^IV 14:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Marella

According to the sources, Marella retired on July 4. Maybe in a interview or facebook, he said he want's to wrestling again, but right now, he is retired. One year after, multiple sources say he is retired (http://www.primerahora.com/deportes/otros/nota/atletasvenezolanosseentrenanengimnasiodesantinomarella-1094126/ http://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=3689&gimmick=Santina+Marella). He didn't come back, so his retirement isn't spectulation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

True as that may be, it is too much information for a simple header. Perhaps you might want to make that a separate section. Scr★pIron^IV 13:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Lancaster County

I used the previous link that reference dated from 2013 to update all the information (I used the linked website to find all the information I updated). Why is the official Lancaster County, Pennsylvania website not sufficient to use as a reference. I know they don't present the information in a nice format like Wikipedia (but isn't that the point of Wikipedia). I had all the references redone. Please stop undoing my correct edits.

The supplied citation was to the Lancaster County home page. IF that website contains the correct information, then you must link to the specific page upon which the information actually exists. Otherwise, you have not provided a source. Scr★pIron^IV 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are removing Open Orthodox when he is clearly OO. YCT is the OO school. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear, and so do you Sir Joseph! Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sir Joseph: Nonsense; you need to find a specific source to support the statement. Denominations are not added to a WP:BLP without a source. Scr★pIron^IV 19:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, someone doesn't go to a rabbinical school and get ordination from that school if they're not part of that denomination. If you're not aware of how it works in Judaism, then I'll let you know, that's how it works. A reform rabbi won't go, and won't be let in to an Orthodox school and especially with Open Orthodox since it's a breakway denomination, if you're going to YCT, then you're Open Orthodox, you're not MO. Do you have a source that he's MO? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That school's article does not claim it is an Open Orthodox institution. What you have changed is a WP:BLPVIO without a source Scr★pIron^IV 19:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

YCT is the OO school. That just shows that you are unaware of the topic. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As are our readers. That is why we use SOURCES to verify things - not our own personal knowledge. Get it, now? Scr★pIron^IV 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is in the lead of the article "

"At a May 2014 gala, one member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, called Open Orthodoxy heretical." the sentence before showed that YCT pulled their application from the RCA (the MO) when it would have been denied. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Further down: "Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, like all Open Orthodox rabbinical schools (Yeshivat Maharat notwithstanding), accepts only male candidates for ordination. " Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Further down it states "...went even further, declaring Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Yeshivat Maharat, Open Orthodoxy, and other affiliated entities..." AGAIN, it states an affiliation, but not that it IS PART THEREOF. There is no explicit statement that this Rabbi is OO, NOR is there an explicit statement that the school is. Clarity is required when dealing with WP:BLP issues. Some would be offended to be called OO, others would be offended to be called Orthodox. SOURCES, SOURCES, SOURCES! We add controversial statements AS SOURCED by the statements of reliables sources, not based upn what we personally know to be true. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they certainly aren't Modern Orthodox since they aren't part of the Rabbinical Council of America and can't join the RCA since YCT graduates are ineligible to join. You should also look at the Avi Weiss article for clarification. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm OK with it the way it is now, since we don't need the denomination, and once we get clarification, we can add it in. On the project page we are figuring out how to categorize the rabbis anyway so that is a chore anyway. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  My issue - and why this nonsense started (and yes, thank you for being the bigger man here) - is that I have seen this individual self-identify as simply "Orthodox."[1] My understanding of Judaism is limited, but I know - as in all faiths - it is controversial when dealing with denominations. I do see and understand your point, and yes, we should have started a dialogue sooner in the edit process. It's one of the downsides of Wikipedia... and I'm not the best communicator. It's why I (usually) stay away from controversial topics. I went looking for a source that openly claims him to be Open Orthodox, and have simply failed to find it. I think it is better to include that information, and I am also certain that you are right. it's just that pesky BLP sourcing thing that is getting in the way... So, I apologise for being brusque, and hope to do better in future. Scr★pIron^IV 19:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and there is an issue within Judaism that there is no membership requirement, so he can say he's Orthodox, but there's no Pope to give him the nod or boot him out. It is after all, where he got his ordination from, (and yes, the YCT article needs work) and how he is currently practicing. Keep in mind that Open Orthodoxy is a new movement, under 10 years or so and while when it just started it may have been claiming to be part of the MO camp, it is now starting to be more open in its more liberal ways so it might be easier to see the denominational splits. Indeed, the pronouncements and edicts from the groups have only recently gotten more vocal. But I do think that if someone has ordination from X, it is fair to say he's X and it should not be a violation of SYNTH. I also think it will most likely be changed soon anyway since claiming him solely as Orthodox casts aspersions on Orthodoxy since he's claiming to be Orthodox, and the cycle will begin again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. But consider, for a moment, an analogy to the non-Judaic mindset: Even if one attends seminary at a well known Presbyterian University, it does not mean that they are Presbyterian; they could as easily choose to be of any of the protestant denominations, or could choose to go on to some of the more controversial denominations that "true believers" might not consider "Christian" at all. Religion can be a real mess, and it's why I end up being a stickler for supporting sources. From my perspective - and it could be wrong: When I read "Open Orthodox" I saw a specific denomination, when I read "Modern Orthodox" I saw a broader movement. But it is not why I restored it to that; I restored it to the status quo for long-standing content. I really do want to see the article improved, and would prefer for it to be more specific. Scr★pIron^IV 20:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but just to clarify, YCT is not a university per se, those going, are going just to get ordination to become rabbis. It's not like Jewish students going to Touro college which is a Jewish college but anyone can go and it's just a convenient college for Jewish students for scheduling, etc. Modern Orthodoxy is oftentimes used as a catchall for people who want to be part of Orthodoxy, so it has people from the right to the extreme left. I'm not sure if OO is a denomination or a movement. That's the big issue right now for OO and MO, is OO part of normative Orthodoxy or is it similar to Conservative, as it is becoming clearer, according to some? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If I understand, then it is even more complex than I originally thought. If he clearly self identified with the movement, it would be easier. The only source I found was a newsletter for the kosher food industry that clearly labels him OO. But even self identifying has its issues, as one my believe that their belief system falls within a certain ideology or doctrine, but are actually preaching outside it. Such a mess. Certainly there are many who have been charged with heresy or apostasy over the years that did not think they were breaking the rules... Scr★pIron^IV 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I found a FB post where he asks, "What should OO/MO do aboutX?" But that obviously won't work. Only time will bring an unambiguous statement. They're going to need to make one, one day, either OO, or O. But in this case it is a bit easier since the RCA disavowed them which they never do. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What?

What did I add to Wolfgang that you removed? Also, most of wikipedia is lacking citations, but the pages are still there...119.92.93.84 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The page on wolves did not mention Wolfgang, the Wolfgang you linked to Tansformers did not include any Wolfgang as a character. Each entry added should be directly connected to the term being disambiguated, and have a link to the subject. That IS a disambiguation page. If you wish to create a separate article about the name, feel free. Scr★pIron^IV 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I never linked anything to Transformers! And why would the page about Germanic Mythology have the name Wolfgang in it?119.92.93.84 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, this link says that your IP did. So, unless you are sharing a computer minute by minute with someone else who is editing the same article, then... Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, it is a disambiguation page, and your repeated addition and removal of the template is disruptive. Do not remove it again. Scr★pIron^IV 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Observium fork revert

I see you reverted my edit on the Observium fork (to LibreNMS), stating that per WP:RS a blog is not a reliable resource. Although I think the statement that there has been controversy is undeniably correct (many online sources can be found for this), I want to avoid slandering Observium and its authors and just represent the emergence of the fork in a neutral manner, which is a valid part of Observium's history. What do you think is the best way to do this? I suppose just mentioning the start of the fork without referring to the controversy should not need that blog source, for example. -- Mark Bergsma (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material will be challenged, and removed. As far as the LibreNMS information goes, that is part of the founding of LibreNMS. I don't know - or even much care - about the controversy itself, but I certainly have no intention of allowing LibreNMS to promote themselves on the Observium page, particularly given the years of vandalism that has been perpetrated on the Observium page by that organization. If something absolutely neutral and impeccably sourced is provided, then of course it could stay. Scr★pIron^IV 21:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and I have no stake in the argument either. But I assume you will also not object to those same policies being applied to the rest of the Observium article either:

• As mentioned on Talk:Observium, software forks are typically mentioned on the base software article as well, which can be verified using List_of_software_forks. Therefore it seems that your statement that the founding of the LibreNMS fork is (only?) relevant to LibreNMS is not sufficient for disallowing it here.
• The rest of the article appears to contain some bits of information that are either trivia or seem questionably sourced as well; for example the information about the Kickstarter campain is somewhat out of place/irrelevant, and uses Twitter as a source which is not inline with WP:RS. Strangely this appears to have been the subject of repeated edit wars in the past, and perhaps should be removed as the value of it is unclear.
• Vandalism appears to have been fueled by both sides of the argument, with some rather questionable material having been added in the past. The article should be kept absolutely neutral and well sourced, but we should also make sure that these policies aren't being used to prevent valid, relevant information being added that one side would rather not like to see.

-- Mark Bergsma (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at New York University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dolly Cao (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Removing a maintenance tag without addressing the problem is vandalism. It has been nominated for GA reassessment necause of massive COI editing on the page. Until it is reviewed - by an UNINVOLVED editor - the reassessment request and the COI tag remain. Scr★pIron^IV 21:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hat tip: even if it was to kill my entry....

Wow...someone actually saw and flagged my new entry (Icepeople) almost immediately after I entered it. No idea who you are, where you are or what you do in real life, but that's rather impressive. As you'll see on the talk page, I'm not going to put up a huge fight (a Wiki listing isn't exactly a life goal), but I posted the entry due to the accedidation thing. If you have any suggestions that would overcome whatever questions you have, obviously I'm open to them.

Sorry for any typos. Writing on an iPad at 1:30 a.m. means a few tend to sneak in...

In the condition I found it, it was purely promotional, and written by an editor with an apparent WP:COI. A second opinion by an admin concurred, and they deleted it. Generally, noteworthy topics are covered by uninvolved editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a business directory or an advertising site. Scr★pIron^IV 13:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		I'll second the congratulations, only this time it's from a fellow experienced Wikipedia editor. Always good to have another ally on the lookout for WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX edits. Keep up the good work! Drm310 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quezon City Science HS

Sir why did you remove the informations? Thegreenparadox (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is unsourced, and excessive. The article was trimmed to be more in keeping with an encyclopedia entry. Such information should go on the school's website. Scr★pIron^IV 13:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

greenparadox

Hey sir im sorry I deleted the discussion im new here and btw im not the one who anonymously editted the qcshs page it's one of my teacher. I hope that you will help me on how to edit and revise pages in this site thank you :) Thegreenparadox (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)