User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

About the "bots"...

• So do know much about the "bots" that are used here on WP? They seem to be invaluable for a myriad of mundane tasks like punctuation and link checking, but I've seen mention of some fairly sophisticated functions as well. I bring this us simply because I like to plan the initial stages of project taking potential future events into consideration. --Scalhotrod (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

♠Beyond knowing they exist, I know nothing at all. I recommend you find one leaving traces in a page history & link to it, then find the user responsible. Chances are, whoever it is can either design what you want, or point you to somebody who can. Heniz Schultz ^{don't look at me, Herr Oberst} 07:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Morgantown

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Morgantown. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of films considered the worst

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of films considered the worst. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Busted Mavericks

Just to be clear, I claim no credit for ever editing Samuel Maverick, let alone actually creating it. 8o TBH, I wasn't even sure there was a page til I needed one. Glad you found it interesting, tho. ;p Me, too. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I was equally impressed with its completeness. Granted it has a single source for its citations so its roughly a summary of that book, but nonetheless its still a well done article. I finally started in on Roy Brizio's bio so the Maverick article helps as encouragement. I used the Coddington article as a template. In fact that gave me an idea for a template design for MotoMod, create article templates for people bios (based on the WP bio template) and particular cars. If part of the goal is to standardize and organize, then it makes sense to offer a means. Have any ideas for other kinds of article templates? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

None particularly. I think a variation on the WPSHIPS template for individual ships (like this) would be a good idea for "name" customs, tho, now you ask. AFAIK, WPAuto only has the "marque" infobox (like this one), which is close but not ideal. I like the idea of hitting the highlights at a glance. That does beg the question of the nature of the specs, tho. So what about this?

Name

Builder

Year built (or year completed, anyhow)

Original owner?

Make (or orginal maker, like Merc)

Model (or original model)

Paint: (color{s}, type, striping)

Painter (if somebody other than the builder)

Wheelbase:

Engine

Head

Intake

Carb

Exhaust

Type (tri-y, 4-2-1, 180)

Maker

Ignition

Transmission (maker & model)

Rearend (maker, type, & axle ratio)

Chop (Y/N, inches/cm)

Channel (Y/N, inches/cm)

Section (Y/N, inches/cm)

Nosed (Y/N)

Grille (brand, or factory)

Headlights:

Taillights:

Windshield:

Rear window:

Doors:

Wheels (F/R):

Make:

Diameter:

Width:

Hubcaps:

Suspension (type & source)

Brakes (type & source)

Seats (type & source)

Upholstery material

Upholstery style (button tuck, tuck & roll, something else)

Major features

So, to take an example:

Name: Hirohata Merc (this is a bit exceptional, since there's no actual "name")

Builder: George & Sam Barris

(Original owner: Bob Hirohata)

Year built: 1953

Make: 1951 Merc

Model: Club Coupé

Paint: 2 shades of green, 30 coats

Painter: Junior Conway

Wheelbase: stock

Engine: stock Merc flatty

Transmission:

Rearend:

Chopped: 3" front/ 5" rear

Channelled:

Sectioned:

Nosed:

Grille: three '51 Ford

Headlights: stock, frenched, with '52 Ford rings

Taillights: '52 Lincoln Capri

Windshield: stock (I think...), vee-butted

Rear window:

Doors:

Wheels:

Hubcaps: Cad sombreros (not sure of the year)

Suspension:

Brakes:

Seats:

Upholstery material: naugahyde

Upholstery style: tuck & roll

Major features: B-pillar raked forward, dagmars added, '52 Buick spears with '52 Chevy teeth, exhaust through rear bumper, radio aerial frenched into rear quarter

IDK if it's necessary to specify so much, but for people unfamiliar, maybe a good idea. I expect most of these pages will be by rod/custom enthusiasts who will know what to put in; even then, specifying "maker" might be a good idea, or we may just get "9-inch" or "10-bolt". Not sure we need the tranny ratios. Also, I'm taking this example as a common template; we'd need 2, one for rods (with the extra engine detail), one for customs. The "brakes" field might also want a subfield for things like the finned Buick covers (IIRC) used a lot in the '50s. "Doors" I'm thinking, are they on solenoids or not? Were they suicided? The dechroming & adding power windows & such would tend to fall under "features". The paint, ideally, would use the factory names, or at least the painter's name for it. If I missed something obvioius, do mention it. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it! As for people, I think the celebrity infobox is a good place to start. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

♠TYVM. :D I hit all the points I'd want to see at a glance. Needless to say it'd need an image & caption field. ;p I can't recall which mag, but there's one with a specs box that covers it pretty thoroughly; that might be the best model to copy.

♠I also like the celebrity box. I do wonder, if it's going to include a "major project(s)" field, do we limit to one, 1-2, or say "see article"? For Grabowski, it'd be the T-bucket; for Barris or Boyd... Also, a thought: do we want a field for "known as" or "commonly known as"? In the community, Coddington's usually known as Boyd, & the likes of Kenny Howard are actually better known by nicknames. (Obviously this ties to the nicknames page...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:21 & 21:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

URIMDB

Nice job. Congrats.

BTW, for those stumbling on this page, can I suggest you break out the CustomRod project stuff from the Maverick reply? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, time for some house keeping... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Man, that's some kind of ambition. ;p IDK how you do it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Response...

I knew that had to have been a ruling on that subject... somewhere... thanks, dude... Magus732 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

High E.T.

No worries, I'll be here when you're ready. :D (Managed to hide that comment pretty well, tho. 8o ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to be an appropriate spot to post it considering the sentiment of the section... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I did get that part. ;p Lest I forget, let me wish you best for the season. Ebeneezer Scrooge ^{bad Santa} 19:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bah, humbug.

Much appreciated Sir :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Wachowskis

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Wachowskis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlize Theron

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Lockerz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Splendid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Words With Friends

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Words With Friends. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Peninsula Banjo Band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Lowrey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Peninsula Banjo Band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NBC Orchestra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frederick "Rick" Barton

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Frederick "Rick" Barton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited International Harvester Metro Van, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transmission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pittsburgh Passion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pittsburgh Passion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Native American women of the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Native American women of the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roger Waters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roger Waters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Afro-textured hair

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Afro-textured hair. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of banjo bands (worldwide)

The article List of banjo bands (worldwide) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RS. Indiscriminate list for which only two entries have Wikipedia articles.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Cruise

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Cruise. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ian Jackson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ian Jackson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bidisha

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bidisha. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:India Summer

I didn't see that part, my bad. And thanks for the kind words. =) Asarelah (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to resolve an issue on Sandy Hook Elementary

Thank you for your kind words, agree, there are a lot of procedural, administrative, and other sneaky POV tactics going on over there (it's definitely a boxing-gloves-dipped-in-glue-and-broken-glass Bloodsport over there) - I only see this in the polarized issue articles like climate change, gun rights, abortion etc. I agree, let's push to keep the article balanced and based strictly on the facts. I think there is common ground with the sensible editors out there on presenting facts but there are others out there with a very clear agenda and some are just plain irrational in their thinking or what Wikipedia is (scary). It's frankly tiring. Glad to know there are other dispasionate editors out here. Thank you for your help!--Justanonymous (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll watch your talk page for a few days in case we want to discuss further here the shenanigans going on over there, or just vent.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"actually, the "rule" is leave it in ... until consensus dictates to remove"

Never heard this one before for something that did not involve the verification of a source. Can you link me to the actual policy/rule? Thanks --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that, when there is a dispute, you leave the article in its original format (without the new / proposed change) ... and discuss the change on the Talk Page. No? Otherwise, the "bad change" would stay in the whole time, until the Talk Page irons out the dispute. Which makes no sense. No? That is what I have been told – on many different occasions – when I was involved in content disputes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So that would be "No", you can't link me to the explanation of this WP policy or substantiate your claim. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC) as quoted from... [1]

Edit war on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting .

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to in the article? Your posting of this comes across more as a random threat than a legitimate or specific admonition. Please be more specific so this is not interpreted as personal attack or harassment.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be acting as if people need your permission to edit the page leaving out-of-policy edit messages such as "Please participate in the Talk page discussions before making edits" and making quite a few reverts: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] over the past few days. Nobody needs your permission to edit that page, but continuing to undo the work of others is WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I simply asked that you respect the process that we have established for the editing of this article. You made unilateral changes to the article to sections and items that had been previously discussed. Are you saying that your personal opinions are more important than the consensus of multiple active editors?

I am not alone in the pattern in this pattern of activity. Mine just happens to interact with yours.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

At least one of the edits you reverted was not discussed in the talk or archives. I haven't checked all of them but your repeated reversions speak for themselves.

As far as "the process that we have established for the editing of this article" it is the process we follow for other articles. There is no restriction on that page. As the administrator that first placed protection on that page, I think I know a little about that. Editors do not need your permission to edit and your actions smack of ownership. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Before I forget to say this, thank you for your comments and interest in my editing. I do understand and appreciate the doctrine of ownership and have encountered it on several occasions. As such I make the effort to avoid it. Furthermore, as a Sr. editor and administrator I'll be one of the first to acknowledge that you understand far, far better than I do that anyone can edit an article. Its one of most fantastic aspects of WP and its Sr. Wikipedians such as yourself that I look to for guidance in being a better editor.

Thank you as well for placing the protection on the page. It was a very prudent move and I can only imagine the exponentially greater mess that would have been created without it.

Again, I am not alone in my actions, there is a core group of editors that have been rather vigilant in monitoring the article, Masem, Justanonymous, Joseph A. Spadero, HiLo, IanMacM, Knowledgekid87, and others. I meant no offense with my edits. From my perspective I was simply doing what others have been for the last 2 weeks.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've also been one of the folks maintaining order on that page and I've handed out quite a few blocks related to that page. You recently stated:

From my perspective, I have been diligent and consistent (as have others) with trying to maintain the status quo of the article. If we collectively agree on an edit and then a 3rd party makes a change seemingly without regard to our discussions here, I feel its warranted to revert the edit and ask the editor to participate in the process we have established.

There are a couple of things wrong with that:

• One, the purpose of that article not being fully protected (it has never been more than semi-protected) was explicitly NOT to "maintain the status quo of the article." Attempts to do so are considered disruptive. Wikipedia articles are meant to evolve.
• Two, You might take a look at WP:BRD. It's highly appropriate for an article like that. Edits do not need to be discussed beforehand. However, controversial edits should be quickly reverted. Just because they haven't been discussed, doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. If that was the case, we should fully-protect the article and consensus can be reached before an {{editrequest}} can be approved.

Now, I haven't reinstated my edit, nor have I opened a discussion about it on the talk page because I really don't feel that strongly about it. I was prepared to walk away when I realized you had self-appointed yourself as an antibody to any changes not approved on the talk page and were on a spree of reversions.

I hope you understand the problem now. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I was unaware of WP:BRD, its an interesting read and helps greatly. Again, thank you!

I completely agree that articles should evolve. My comment about "maintaining the status quo" was in the same vein as "controversial edits (that) should be quickly reverted". As I'm sure you're keenly aware, we've had our fair share of article hijacks and soapboxing since its creation. Its a tragic event that has elicited very passionate comments and responses.

I'm glad that you're involved and helping the process, the editing community will be better off and in the long run the article will be of higher quality.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad we sorted that out. Happy new year. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! :) BTW, I made the effort to make others aware of WP:BRD on the Talk page. When I encounter good things I like to share.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. My father would have said that was quite gentlemanly of you but these days that's not a politically correct way to give a compliment. Either way it was a stand-up thing to do. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit "old school" so your compliment is well received, thank you! :) PC is overrated anyway... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Found it!

Hi, in regard to our earlier conversation about whether or not to keep an edit while its being discussed, I found the policy...! :) Its called "Bold, Revert, Discuss" and the page is a great read. I learned a few things about the process from it. I thought you might appreciate knowing about it especially if it helps you make a case for a future edit.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I read through that. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Dingoes ate my baby (disambiguation)

Hello, Scalhotrod,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Dingoes ate my baby (disambiguation) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingoes ate my baby (disambiguation) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Howicus (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dingoes ate my baby (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evil Angels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Halogen oven, Scalhotrod.

Unfortunately MrX has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I have unreviewed this because it still has several issues such as no sources, written like an advertisement and very little context.

To reply, leave a comment on MrX's talk page.

I don't mean to step on any toes, so please let me know if you disagree. - MrX 03:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Branxholme Locomotive Dump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rail car (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

NRA Page Cleanup

I did some heavy housecleaning over at the NRA page. Removed a ton of contentious language and redundant negative entries. I hope it meets with your neutrality point of view. Please take a look at it and help me watch it. There are a lot of ardent people who want to sneak it critical commentary in almost every part of the article. Help policing appreciated.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wayne LaPierre

You might want to keep an eye on Wayne LaPierre. The same POV edit wars from National Rifle Association are starting to migrate over there (even worse since this is a BLP article). ROG5728 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

NRA

Hey, I just commented on my Talk page — [7]. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's looking good now. Nice job. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the next things to do, I think, is to include a section on membership/member demographics. This could incorporate the surveys of NRA members conducted by both the NRA and outside organizations. Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen Contributions

I have posted on Rjensen's talk page informing him he's broken the 3R rule. I haven't requested that he be blocked yet but he really hasn't made good faith to come to the talk. By my count he has revered this content 3 or 4 times, clearly beyong the 3R rule. I count you me and Roger as reverting him once and him reverting it back 3 times plus his original addition in 24 hours. He could be blocked but I don't want us to get dragged into that mess. If he persists without comming to the talk, let's request a block - or you can report him now - but let's not revert him anymore without admin help maybe Toddst1? - deal? if we edit war, Todd will block the entire lot of us and not lose one ounce of sleep over it. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My high-capacity block magazine comes in handy. :) Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Very perceptive. Could you give the timeline for Rjensen's 3RR edits. Moriori (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I looked and couldn't find it. Please spell it out. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - there was a little fight over roughly 1,577 bytes of content over a couple of days with some parties not coming to the talk to discuss and reach consensus. By this count Rjensen got to 2R, Rog5728 got to 2R, Scalhotrod got to 1R, Athene Cunicularia got to 1R and Justanonymous got to 1R (when I reverted per WP:BRD and posted on the user talk pages). My post directly to the various editors' talk pages was in the hope of getting us to the talk before the entire lot of us ran afoul of you admins in an edit war. After a closer analysis, it looks like nobody actually crossed the bright red 3R line, I thought we had at first glance which precipitated my post to the editors' talk pages to try to cool things down... still a nasty little skirmish and very typical of what has been going on around here (NRA, Lapierre page, various gun related pages) for the last month and a half - with some parties not really discussing or gaining consensus in the talk. I didn't report this to admins yet because I wanted to see if the warring continued or if people came to the talk - here is the history I was looking at from the NRA page:

• 05:08, February 3, 2013‎ Scalhotrod(talk | contribs)‎ . . (54,346 bytes) (-1,577)‎ . .(→‎Public opinion: this is good info, but it belongs in the gun politics article, not in one about an organization) [automatically accepted]
• 04:56, February 3, 2013‎ Rjensen(talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,923 bytes) (+1,577)‎ . .(Poll done by German company published in #1 medical journal is a RS) [automatically accepted]
• 04:45, February 3, 2013‎ Justanonymous(talk | contribs)‎ . . (54,346 bytes) (-1,577)‎ . .(Undid revision 536301995 by Rjensen (talk)per WP:BRD discuss contentious entry in talk and reach consensus.) [automatically accepted]
• 04:26, February 3, 2013‎ Rjensen(talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,923 bytes) (+1,577)‎ . .(drop POV blanking of scientific study by top medical school re NRA members) [automatically accepted]
• 02:25, February 3, 2013‎ ROG5728(talk | contribs)‎ . . (54,346 bytes) (-1,577)‎ . .(Removed, per my comments on the talk page. This info isn't related to the public's opinion of the NRA, and the source is highly questionable. This article isn't about background checks or the gun control debate.) [automatically accepted]
• 19:29, February 2, 2013‎ Athene cunicularia(talk | contribs)‎ . . (54,921 bytes) (+1,611)‎ . .(→‎Public opinion: Per Rog's comments, removed sentence about gun control. The rest is directly about NRA though.) [automatically accepted]
• 19:27, February 2, 2013‎ ROG5728(talk | contribs)‎ . . (53,310 bytes) (-1,853)‎ . .(→‎Public opinion: Removed, per my comment on the talk page. How is any of this relevant to the NRA, or the public's opinion of them?) [automatically accepted]

All gun related articles are tough right now but they shouldn't be (it's an encyclopedia!) - a lot of POV pushing and as this shows border skirmishes if not outright warring with a few editors trying to stem the tide of pov pushing - unsuccessfully at that. Very frustrating. These pages (NRA, Lapierre, Assault Weapon, etc) were very stable before the Sandy Hook tragedy and then they've just degraded. This is typical and then when the fighting is done few care enough to bring them to a high quality standard. Scalhotrod estimates that 40% of the content for the Wayne Lapierre page is post Sandy Hook. How can an wiki-encyclopedic biography for a person who has been in semi-public life for 20 years be dominated by events from the last month? It makes no sense WP:Recentism. I kindof wish you admins would revert these contentious pages to their state on December 1st, lock them for six months, and then the real wikipedia editors can come in and add what's material next August after the agenda driven pov pushers have tired. At the moment people are just fighting and pov pushing and we're all going to get blocked by you guys if not today, maybe tomorrow, over this NRA page or some related page. As a note, the Lapierre page is open for trashing while the NRA page is currently blocked - I'll give you all three guesses at who is going to show up at the Lapierre Page. Block the NRA page, and the Lapierre page gets trashed, block them both and the fight moves into the gun control page etc etc, it's the same users exhibiting patterns of WP:Disruptive editing. Scalhotrod has tried to appease everyone but even he sees the disruptive editting by some parties on multiple pages. At this point I think even I've been punched a couple of times and I don't want to be blocked. I'll go back to editing Global Warming Pages where it's tame by comparison these days. Any help you admins can provide, much appreciated. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh. wow. I get it. BTW, you might want to use WP:DIFFs in the future. It makes it easier to follow. I'll issue a warning and let me or another admin know if you see it continuing (on any article). Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Folks, seems like progress is being made. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Rifle Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Baker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal comments

Talk:Wayne LaPierre is a discussion of an article, not me or which articles I choose to edit, Mr. Scal. Please delete your most recent comment, which is off-topic. --Zeamays (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when does being on topic or not have any importance to you except when its your point? You have established a pattern of questionable edits that I made others aware of.

Also, I am not in the habit of deleting anything, especially on a Talk page. The structure of Wikipedia is such that nothing is ever "lost". Furthermore, I was addressing the comments of another editor.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a polite request. Wikipedia editors are expected to assume good faith on the part of other editors. My choice of articles to edit is my business, not yours. --Zeamays (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about "good faith", but they're also expected to be neutral, use credible/reliable sources, and not push a POV in one article or systematically across several. And you're right about your choice of articles to edit, but which ones you do choose are available for any editor to look up.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

WP editors are not expected to personally be neutral, but to edit in good faith. No one is neutral. Yes, you can look up what articles I edit, go ahead, but don't publish a highly selected subset of them on a talk page and claim to make deductions about my motivations. Also, NPOV means how we write about facts, not that notable facts should be suppressed. I suggest you have a look at WP:BLP#Public figures, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." --Zeamays (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You won't listen to reason or accept anyone else's definition or interpretation of "notable" other than yours. I've run afoul of Admins who have little or no tolerance for actions such as yours. If I can find a pattern so easily, not only will one of them eventually, but they'll take swift action. One bit of advice, you may want to read this article... Wikipedia:Disruptive editing --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have also run afoul of this Admin who has little tolerance for your action. Zeamays made a polite and reasonable request above that you delete remarks you made about him on a talk page|. He correctly says the page is for discussion of the article, not him. I suggest you strike your analysis of Zeamays edit history, and AGF.. Moriori (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Its been pointed out to me that Zeamays is seemingly guilty of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing across the various articles that I mentioned on the talk page for Wayne LaPierre article. Personally, I don't like using official sanctions (or even mentioning them out of fear of being accused of making a threat) because I prefer simply to "talk it out".

So on the Talk page in question when User Zeamay repeatedly accused me and others not assuming good faith on his part, it was then that I made to effort to research the matter and present evidence as to why it seemed that he/she was not editing in good faith. I pointed this out, if that is considered a personal attack according to WP policy, then I'm confused by how the policy is implemented.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I took you to task for refusing a polite, reasonable request that you delete remarks you made about an editor on an article talk page. You have responded with irrelevancy. Moriori (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I made remarks about an editor's history of edits. Given Zeamays' actions since Dec. 15th, I do not consider hiding or covering up an observation of a disruptive pattern of edits a reasonable request. I refused his request because the statements I made were based on information available to all WP editors and not of a personal nature per personal attack. Are you taking me to task because you feel that the issue of Zeamays disruptive edits should not be discussed at all or that it shouldn't be discussed on the Wayne LaPierre Talk page?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You already know the answer to the question. You have twice been told by me the reason he requested deletion was because you made remarks about him on an article talk page, (1) "...he correctly says the page is for discussion of the article, not him..." and (2) "...remarks you made about an editor on an article talk page...". Still, if you feel you have no requirement to exercise "good conscience" (see Justanonymous' post below) then we will understand. Moriori (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll chime in on this since I've been seeing some of this unfold. These last few months have been very tough in the gun pages with emotions running high on all sides. Zeamays has a slightly different philosophy (I think his heart is in the right place) but it does not align with some of the philosophies of the prevalent editors of these articles. I've also seen editors take very aggressive, almost provocative, postures on talk pages initially only to redact and sanitize their commentary after somebody else responds which can make a responding editor seem unreasonable at a first blush look at their statements - The only way to tell what the real narrative was is to start going through a bunch of diffs at considerable time expense on the part of an admin or interested party. Imagine:

• Editor A attacks editor B
• Editor B responds aggressively to Editor A and calls him out
• Editor A's philosophy is to sanitize his initial statement but Editor B's philosophy is to leave things as is
• The result is a narrative that at first glace seems like Editor B was a jerk (until you start using DIFFS)

Unless there is a very clear egregious violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - libel, a direct and clear personal attack, or a threat etc - I prefer for the talk pages to remain as unadulterated as possible and to reflect the initial commentary of an editor and train of thought of editors versus it turning into an oversanitized history (with the notable exception that an editor sometimes reverts immediately after their post before anybody else responds or a entire collapse and archiving of a discussion that went off topic for one reason or another - which is a fair reconsideration, retractions, and closures - we've all done that, especially on heated topics). In this case Scalhotrod made an observation of Zeamays editing history and it reflects the narrative as it was occurring. Now Zeamays wants to enforce his talk page editing philosophy on Scalhotrod. Is Scalhotrod's entry a violation of not a forum? marginally, but leniency is generally allowed to an extent provided you're discussing the material in question - which we are. It does provide context and makes it easier to see what is going on. If the intent is to move the discussion about personal editing styles to another place, I'm fine. If the intent is to stifle and hide the discussion/observation, then I have a problem. We all have our styles and reputations here and the only things that note who we are - are our choice of words and their judicious use. Personally, I think we're just dealing with very different editing styles and philosophies rather than a true problem. I think tolerance on all sides would probably help us understand where Zeamays is coming from and help him understand that not all editors are on here to block his every attempt to add content - at least Zeamays hasn't edit warred but his style does generate a lot of back room commentary that sucks up a lot of oxygen and is counterproductive to editing Wikipedia. We need to move from "forming" through "storming" and into "performing" pretty quickly - we need to GEL. From history - admins generally collapse irrelevant discussions and then archive them vs demanding retractions from the editors who made a statement that was outside the norms of the wiki. Those off topic statements are invaluable in peering into an editor's contributions. I leave it in the good conscience of each individual editor what they add or remove and I leave it in the hands of administrators to remove, collapse, archive direct violations that they see and yes directly block us if we stray too far off the reservation. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)