Jump to content

User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone!

Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

  • "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
  • "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
  • "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Polyamoury

Have you actually looked at the sources. The sources that are mentioned at first, the whole list of things. have nothing to do with the subject line or the line that is being sad. I suggest you read the whole talk page discussion, including looking at the debunking of all the sources being reliable. There are only two reliable sources. The rest are blogs. And one paper that has nothing to do with the subject. Secondly its about Polygamy Hence why the source that remained in the end. Is on the polygamy place. Please before reverting me again. Read the whole talk page, and actually look at the sources that were used to do the pov pushing. NathanWubs (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies to you NathanWubs. I'm so used to seeing wholesale deletion like this, that I forget to review the Talk page first. Personally, I'm glad that the content is gone especially if its so poorly sourced and POV. The way it read, it looked credible, but I see your points. Thank you for taking the time to explain it and again my apologies for mucking up a consensus based edit. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, its not problem its an honest mistake. NathanWubs (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
NathanWubs, and thank you again for understanding! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I appreciate the discourse via our talk pages. Cheers to that. Darknipples (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What ifs

Hi, Scalhotrod. I'm here because of the notations in these two diffs [1] & [2]. Please clarify what you mean by them. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the Edit Summaries, so...
"What ifs" just refers to hypothetical situations or scenarios. It's also a type of statement used in code for logical statements in programming, so maybe that how it came into my personal vernacular.
"OK and...?" was just an inquiry as to the reason for your posting. You posted what seemed like content you are suggesting for the article with a source, but I did not understand the reason or context for what you posted. By the way, Lightbreather used to get particularly upset when I used the stock Edit summaries (i.e. "Cleanup", etc.) or anything generic, so I have been making the effort to actually say something. My apologies if they come across as cryptic or just not terribly straightforward. Anything else... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It is possible this may just have been a misunderstanding. However, I have now expressed to you that "the tone" in which these "Edit Summeries" (thanks for the correction) were presented can easily be construed as somewhat UNCIVIL. I suggest that moving forward, if you are replying to me or one of my posts or comments, just put "reply DN" in the edit summary. That way we can avoid any future misunderstandings. The Edit Summaries are just as meaningful as the comments on the TP. Sorry for the bother, and thanks for your time. Darknipples (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, I don't typically consider the "tone" as if someone were speaking since its written communication, good suggestion nonetheless. No worries... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but I should clarify with you that while you have explained what these edit summaries "represent", I am still without an explanation as to what you "meant" by them. At this point it's not necessary unless you feel inclined to do so on my TP, otherwise, I will bid you a good-evening. Darknipples (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey DN, no worries and I'm sorry if this comes across as being somewhat dense, but I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between "represent" and "mean". Aside from what I explained above, there was no other intended communication. I wasn't trying to be cryptic or passive aggressive in any way and I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but it wasn't intended nor was it meant to be inferred. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that other editors active on that page have consistently adopted an uncivil tone in a wide variety of venues. Including your most highly visible ally, Darknipples. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ally? Cullen328, you're joking or being sarcastic, right? DN and I are trying to work through the context of a complicated issue while attempting to impress upon others, LB, ME, et. al., that's its not as "cut and dry" as the media tries to portray it. Just the fact that we're all so confused about it is evidence that the media consistently gets it wrong.
That said, if other Editors want to be uncivil or have a "tone", that's fine for them, but I don't go looking for it or assume its intended with every comment I read. I still fail to understand why we all can't just write an article ABOUT a subject and not have to DEBATE IT within the article or on the Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I was neither joking nor being sarcastic, but you make some good points. I don't like it when some editors make little digs all the time. Sometimes it is tough to figure out who is allied with whom. As for the arguments, they will inevitably occur on talk pages of articles about controversial topics, which is OK as long as the argument/debate is about how to improve the article. Arguing within any article is always unacceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the "digs" can get to me especially on a "bad day", but I do my best to overlook them and just see them as "character attributes". Heck, sometimes I get my best laugh of the day from some of these "digs" when they are made towards me...! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

PC: Adrien Broner

Apologies for the hiccup. I originally accepted the recent change (today), but then restored it back to pending after I looked at your reverts within a few days/hours. DivineAlpha (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, things like this seem to happen to the Special:PendingChanges list items all the time. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor

I think this has been hashed and rehashed enough. SC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Kinda makes sense to comment in this same section, so… hi. You seem to have misinterpreted my original response—meant as a gentle reminder to include some substance in an argument—as an attack on you as a person rather than a criticism of your post. I honestly have no idea how this happened, so I’d like to apologize for the misunderstanding, and also to ask you to tell me what gave that impression so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

174.141.182.82, well for starters not saying anything in response to my Vote would have eliminated the possibility of any impression, WP:NPA or otherwise. That fact that another User made the same comment and you DID NOT comment made it seem more directed towards ME personally, than a general comment by you.
For that matter, it's entirely within WP policy for me to change, augment, delete, or strikethrough my own comment. It's not up to you to highlight anything in my remarks, if you want to quote them and then add your own emphasis, sobeit. Had you not commented here, I would have just left a Talk page template like {{:subst:uw-tpv2}}. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That addition changed the entire context and meaning of my reply after I had made it, so, I respectfully disagree. Please review WP:REDACT (and especially please review relevant project pages before you consider posting template warnings to other users). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, why would I have targeted you personally, when as far as I’m aware we’d never interacted before? Forgive me if the following seems like a personal attack, but it seems to me like perhaps you’re just a bit oversensitive to such things. Criticisms of your works or your reasoning are not criticisms of you.—174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you did not intend your comment as a personal attack nor did I take it as one, but people make stupid comments on WP all the time. I'm just trying to point out how your actions can be interpreted by others. You're still a fairly new Editor (7 months?), so I'm more than willing to WP:AGF and give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that you've already perceptually overstepped your bounds since you've been brought to WP:ANI. Being an IP Editor versus having an account doesn't help your situation either. There is a site-wide bias against conscientious IP Editors. If you're WP:HERE to build, it would be a good idea to register, it also provides you with a degree of anonymity since pretty much anyone can trace your IP address.
As for changing anyone comments unilaterally without any prior communication (such as asking permission or asking me to change it back) when its not a blatant personal attack or similar instance is NEVER a good idea regardless of your interpretation of policy. By the way, WP:REDACT only applies when en Editor is changing their own comment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
“By the way, WP:REDACT only applies when en Editor is changing their own comment.” Which is the thing you did after getting a reply, which is the reason I brought it up. I do apologize for taking it upon myself to mark up your late insertion, but I hope you understand that I only did so because your actions would have caused mine to be misinterpreted by anyone who would have read it without checking the edit history (so in a way, you changed my comment first). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, no need to keep rehashing this... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:MOS and single-sentence paragraphs

I can't find anything in WP:MOS about single-sentence paragraphs. There is no rule against single-sentence paragraphs, as far as I know, though they should not be used excessively. Lightbreather (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey LB, I had second thoughts after writing that as well and you're right. Its the WP:GOCE that strongly discourages single sentence paragraphs as part of their guidelines and standards, so its not policy. But a single sentence paragraph is not terribly in the spirit of WP:LEAD. Personally, I'd prefer if we left the political factions out of the lead altogether and just stick to describing the overall circumstances of the issue. The article does not include a lot about the standpoints as it is and with the common understanding we established, it's pretty clear that its a gaping hole in firearm regulation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Lightbreather (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs where you've removed gender-related (and other due) material from article:

  • [3] (You said it was unsourced, but it was - at least the gender-related part - well-sourced.)
  • [4] (With this "clean up" edit YOU COMPLETELY REMOVED SOURCED, GENDER-RELATED PARAGRAPH.)
  • [5] (Here, you deleted it again, saying (the material?) was already in "presented lists.")
  • [6] (And again.)
  • [7] (Among other things, you misrepresented the article when you wrote "The article states that although there are roughly equal numbers of men and women working in the tech industry...." Nowhere in the article does it say that. You also correctly named its author in one place, but called him by his first name - misspelled - elsewhere. (He is also tech industry entrepreneur and academic, which you failed to mention.)
  • [8] (You removed as "undue" a homelessness story that received A LOT of press (not just from the source) that had been added to the "Demographics" section - a completely acceptable addition.)
  • [9] (You removed a section I started, and which I indicated that I planned to develop.)

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

unsourced edits

do not restore unsourced info as you did at Kris Jenner[10], do not remove unsourced additions, but then the next day restore it. it goes both ways--Theamazo (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the basis is or is not for your stance, but obviously others (not just myself) disagree. At least I checked the SAG-AFTRA database, but apparently you did not even check the other uses of the Category here on WP. Please take it up on the Talk page and defend your stance there. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone!

Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Playboy Playmates of 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maxim and Stoli. 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) 09:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Marketing

Just want to make sure I don't misunderstand you with regard to your comment here. Were you seeing anything in your online research that shows the firearms industry is currently marketing some semiautomatic firearms as "assault weapons" to civilian customers? They don't actually advertise any models as "assault weapons" to their buyers, do they? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You ask a pertinent question, the basis for my comment was from a fairly broad perspective that includes manufacturers, dealers, advertisements, the media (as a whole), and its political uses. Granted, its prevalence by one group or another has changed over time, but for the most part its politicians currently that use the term. The media just repeats what politicians use in my opinion.
I just find that too often Editors want to focus an entire article on the "current status" or "interpretation" without concern for its historical context. The term was introduced into society and the media in 1985 by a politician and we should explain its use and application since. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gilliam, much appreciated for the grant, well wishes, and encouragement. I'll read up on its full explanation and application, but it looks like a useful tool, thanks again! Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech

/does a happy dance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.192.231.47  ;)

To answer your Q from a while back: I don't know if the issue had been printed. But some folks (not me) had gotten their hands on it. And as can be seen, Athanatophobos' PDS wasn't photoshopped. But what is there to say in a case like that? (That's not meant in a snarky way) People like Dismas will argue against it until they either have the issue in their own hands or it's being proclaimed on a site they trust. Mind, I understand that having sources is an absolute necessity for a encyclopedia. 93.192.228.150 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey 93.192.228.150, I get your point, but something I learned long ago on this site, "verifiability trumps the truth" every time. Pre-production or release examples exist of a great many things, but if we are going to use them as sourcing (especially web based) we have to take into consideration link rot. It's a minor issue, but once printed the issues will exist in perpetuity. We have this same problem in the movie and television articles when pre-production information gets leaked before release or airing and worse yet, changes. It's kind of hard for anyone (including the anti-porn crowd) to dispute a print issue in wide distribution... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Leonard Nimoy

The 2 edits I thanked you for (add Death subheading and move wikisource box) were exactly what I was about to do. ☮ 220 of Borg 02:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on other Bio articles I've worked on, it made sense and was in keeping with article norms.

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol, I'd like you to know that I did not appreciate these two edits or edit summaries:

  • 00:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: Please gain consensus or participate in Talk page discussion before adding this back, WP:BRD
  • 01:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: LB, please be reasonable... and comment in post: Please, I'm happy to start an RfC or ask for a 3rd party opinion or whatever, but please don't leave me any other choice but to seek the assistance of an Admin or a formal process.

On the first diff:

  • First off, you identify yourself[11] as an inclusionist.
  • Second, you had never edited that article before I started editing it on 26 February 2015.
  • Third, among other edits, I added Assault weapon to that article's "See also" list (hardly a "bold" edit).[12]
  • Fourth, less than three hours after I started editing the article, you showed up and performed one of your deceptive, content removing "Clean up" edits,[13] removing what I'd added.
  • Third, after YOU reverted my addition - a second time[14] - I started the discussion about it.[15] (You should have started a discussion about it after your first revert.)
  • Fourth, I gave very convincing reasons why that item should stay. (1. Some semi-automatic pistols are considered assault pistols, and 2. WP:ALSO enables readers to explore tangentially related topics.)[16]
  • Fifth, your reason is your opinion, based on no policy or guideline.

On the second diff? "Please be reasonable" is the same as saying "You're being unreasonable." It's just plain condescending and not AGF. Also, that's at least twice now since our topic ban ended that you've threatened me with "admin assistance." Your hands are not clean in this dispute.

I'm returning to that article now, and if you don't like "assault weapon" in the "See also" section, then yes, I think we should try WP:NPOVN or some other process. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey LB, from what I understand, you just had some kind of medical procedure and you just came off of a 24 hour block, so understandably you might not be in the best of spirits. None of this stuff is a "life or death" matter so let me know when you feel like discussing it again. Take care, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy

The 2 edits I thanked you for (add Death subheading and move wikisource box) were exactly what I was about to do. ☮ 220 of Borg 02:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on other Bio articles I've worked on, it made sense and was in keeping with article norms.

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol, I'd like you to know that I did not appreciate these two edits or edit summaries:

  • 00:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: Please gain consensus or participate in Talk page discussion before adding this back, WP:BRD
  • 01:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: LB, please be reasonable... and comment in post: Please, I'm happy to start an RfC or ask for a 3rd party opinion or whatever, but please don't leave me any other choice but to seek the assistance of an Admin or a formal process.

On the first diff:

  • First off, you identify yourself[17] as an inclusionist.
  • Second, you had never edited that article before I started editing it on 26 February 2015.
  • Third, among other edits, I added Assault weapon to that article's "See also" list (hardly a "bold" edit).[18]
  • Fourth, less than three hours after I started editing the article, you showed up and performed one of your deceptive, content removing "Clean up" edits,[19] removing what I'd added.
  • Third, after YOU reverted my addition - a second time[20] - I started the discussion about it.[21] (You should have started a discussion about it after your first revert.)
  • Fourth, I gave very convincing reasons why that item should stay. (1. Some semi-automatic pistols are considered assault pistols, and 2. WP:ALSO enables readers to explore tangentially related topics.)[22]
  • Fifth, your reason is your opinion, based on no policy or guideline.

On the second diff? "Please be reasonable" is the same as saying "You're being unreasonable." It's just plain condescending and not AGF. Also, that's at least twice now since our topic ban ended that you've threatened me with "admin assistance." Your hands are not clean in this dispute.

I'm returning to that article now, and if you don't like "assault weapon" in the "See also" section, then yes, I think we should try WP:NPOVN or some other process. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey LB, from what I understand, you just had some kind of medical procedure and you just came off of a 24 hour block, so understandably you might not be in the best of spirits. None of this stuff is a "life or death" matter so let me know when you feel like discussing it again. Take care, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL projects

About this edit: [23]. If you'll notice, the ones who added the projects were myself[24] and an IP.[25] (I actually created the article, along with Darknipples. Not that she or I own it, but it helps to understand it development, as well as the history of the talk page.) Further, most projects allow anyone to assess articles, based on whatever the project's assessment criteria is. And according to WP:GUNS, "Firearms related legislation, court cases, organizations, and competitive events" are of low importance. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine for now, the entire classification system needs to be re-addressed because it was intended for technical articles about firearms, not politics. So it doesn't really matter what is says for the time being. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Threading

Friendly suggestion: I don't know if you've always done this, or if you're just doing it lately, but I think it's something you should think about changing... or at least make use of Template:Outdent. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope your recovery is going well and that you feel better soon. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not recovering from anything. Montanabw is (or was). Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun politics task force (GPTF)

I see that you've proposed a gun politics task force (GPTF) on Rezin's talk page, and even started a new page for it under WP:GUNS. Considering that "firearms related legislation and court cases" are rated "Low" on WP:GUN's Importance scale, but politics are important at WP:POLITICS, I'd think a task force there (the politics project) would be a better idea, or as Rezin suggested,[26] consider a joint task force.

Questions:

  • You're basing the GPTF on the gender gap task force. Do you think there is a gun-politics bias on Wikipedia?
  • Would this be a global gun politics task force, or a U.S. gun politics task force?
  • Would the task force have a position on international arms control? On domestic gun control? (For instance, would the task force enforce the view the gun control is arms control?)
  • Would the task force work to keep "politics" out of gun articles? (As you're currently doing at Firearms.[27][28] And at Semi-automatic firarm,[29] Semi-automatic pistol,[30][31][32] Semi-automatic rifle,[33] and Semi-automatic shotgun,[34] where you've been removing Assault weapon from the See also section against WP:ALSO.)
  • Would the task force work to protect the "right to keep and bear arms" as a basic, civil, or god-given right as some gun rights advocates like to say? Would RKBA material be added to every gun/gun politics article?

I have to say I'm a bit concerned because you have professed on-wiki that you are pro gun[35] and also that you'd like to be an admin someday.[36] (And you broke our GC topic ban several times, most notably, here.) From a year - maybe more? - of working with you and seeing your work, I know that if you start a task force, it's likely to lean pro-gun. I think any outsider looking at the same situation might come to the same conclusion, and I'm pretty sure you would be alarmed if I started a GPTF.

I think if you really want to do this, you should start a discussion on the project page and invite other projects - especially WP:POLITICS and WP:LAW to join in. Lightbreather (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting idea. Would I be able to join/apply? Darknipples (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion for another page...
Doesn't the Bill of Rights of the Constitutution of the United States guarantee a right to "keep and bear arms", Lightbreather? And haven't the highest courts of the United States consistently interpreted that as an individual right? Everyone knows that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to other countries, but that certainly does not means that editors who understand and appreciate the Bill of Rights in the U.S. are incapable of editing articles about gun rights in other countries. I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. Do you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. I cannot believe that you're questioning my patriotism. I proudly helped my dad get his SAR membership. My oldest son was in the HHC, 1st Batallion of The Old Guard. He helped to honor many veterans buried at Arlington. He fired salutes at one of Bush's inaugurations. My heart still pounds to remember being at the National Mall on July 4, 2000, as those guns fired to the 1812 Overture. He later served in Iraq, was nearly blown up by an IED, and came home - to my home - with PTSD. I'll thank you to never again question my love of country and what my family has sacrificed for her.
As for your lecture on the Second Amendment: Yes, the highest court ruled - in a split decision - that it gives individuals a right to own arms. But even uber-conservative Scalia, in delivering the majority opinion, wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
But you'll rarely find the Wikipedia pro-gun crowd cramming that into the lead of gun-related articles. If you went by the lead in the many articles they've loaded with their RKBA BS, you'd think every man, woman, and child in the U.S. has the right to roll down the street in a tank with a rifle in one hand and a pistol in the other. Further, in the first section of these articles' bodies, you'll find quotes by Aristotle, Cicero, and Locke making it sound like every human on the planet has the right - perhaps even the duty - to be armed to the teeth. They might even go so far as to say (or to hint) that God himself wants all his children to be packing.
So, to reiterate what I've said before. My father owns guns. My brothers and oldest son own guns. My grandfathers owned guns. I've been taught to handle guns myself. I support the Second... but I believe the minority had it right in Heller (as do many), and even if I didn't, the majority in that decision made it clear that "well regulated" still means something. And my work on Wikipedia, when it comes to gun related articles, is to make sure that 2A arguments are not given WP:UNDUE weight, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Anyone who thinks I'm trying to do anything else should consider an appropriate DR process, or keep their opinions to themselves.
Now, I'm taking this talk page off my watchlist. I hope I don't get pinged again, as Scalhotrod and I are trying to give each other a break. Lightbreather (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: @Cullen328: Let me try to be as clear as I can, the Firearm Project mission, scope, and span of articles is technical and historical in nature. From its earliest days, to its spin off, the purpose and intention behind it has been the scholarly expansion and improvement of articles about the devices themselves. It took me a while to fully appreciate this, but the core of the Project membership, those that are former and/or current Military History Project members, are interested in that as well.

Then a few well intentioned Editors came along (myself included) and started editing articles like Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and National Rifle Association. Things were cordial and collegial at first, but as with most discussions that involve politics, passionate discourse and spirited debate have become vitriolic walls of text laden with passive-aggressive jabs and mean-spirited edit summaries.

The GPTF is just a framework, a new "file folder" of sorts, a place to compartmentalize any scholarly non-technical/historical articles relating to firearms, plain and simple.

DN, you are welcome to participate, but the setup of a template is a fairly cut and dry process. Once its setup, the Task Force and those who choose to specifically be a part of it can manage it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ching chong

Hi there,

This is a courtesy notice that I undid your removal of the section Modern incidents from Ching chong. While I agree the section has gotten unwieldy and is in need of editing, the article does benefit from having something about its modern usage. I'll start off with some removal of the less notable incidents. Let me know if you have ideas on how to fix the section. Transcendence (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Per WP:NOTLINKS, WP:EL (WP:ELNO#10 and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL), and WP:Twitter. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

*, I already know and understand that you are not familiar with the norms of how WP:PORNBIO articles are maintained, its not necessary to re-iterate it, but thank you for the note. Have a nice day! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
So you think all PORNBIO-related articles are exempt from our policies and guidelines? Your previous arguments indicated you were following our policies and not making an exception. At this point, I think it best for you to point to others' agreement and consensus on whatever exceptions PORNBIO-related articles may or may not have.
In the meantime, I hope you can understand that the burden is on you to convince others that the link belongs per WP:ELBURDEN, so you will not edit-war further over them but wait until you've convinced others. Perhaps you should go to WP:ELN at this point. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ronz, I'll give you some more time to figure out what you want to say and how you want to say it. That was a significant text change between those edits, please take your time and compose yourself. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Do try to WP:FOC --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not know about that page, but it was entirely the intention behind my comment. There's no rush, please take your time, and respond at your convenience. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You didn't know about WP:DR? That explains a lot. Do try to follow it. As you'll note, I've already suggested ELN. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ronz, yes, I know about WP:DR, but I don't hang out there. I was referencing your specific link to WP:FOC. Hey, if you don't want to take your own advice [37][38], fine by me. But going after the articles of the most famous porn stars doesn't insult me in the slightest. It will, more than likely, get the attention of other Editors who do not care for Users that make edits based on their personal interpretation of policy and then try to hide behind it. We've been there and done that in the Porn Project and have the precedent of Topic bans and blocks of Editors doing this to show for it. So as you said, do try to WP:FOC. I'm off to run errands, have a nice day! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Anytime you want to steer me to focusing on content, please do. However, those diffs aren't relevant in any way.
"It will, more than likely, get the attention of other Editors who do not care for Users that make edits based on their personal interpretation of policy and then try to hide behind it. " Are you describing yourself? I'm applying my understanding of our policies. You assert that there are some exceptions that you are following, but the assertion is without substance at this point despite my requests for clarification.
As for the assumption that I might want to insult you, I'm sorry if I've done anything to give you that impression. If you'd like to point out exactly what I have written, I will refactor. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of source removal

The source no longer pertains to the content, as it was added supposedly to source the inclusion of certain characters in the show; however, the source was referring to the tie-in games, not the series, and thus has no relevance to the TV show article, hence why I've been trying to remove it. Also, the second edit was to fix grammatical errors on a different part of the page. Please stop reverting these changes. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

136.181.195.25, OK - This came up for review on the Special:PendingChanges list and sometimes edits a blended together without any notation. Thanks for explaining the situation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Removed it one last time. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Playboy Playmates of 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Playboy Playmates of 2014. 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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, your Wiki-etiquette really leave something to be desired. There have been discussions going back almost a year that you could have linked me to. Granted, there's little consensus and some seem to contradict Policy, but that's no excuse for your demeanor. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It kind of makes a HUGE difference. It changes things from the perception of some Editor "on a unilateral mission" to at least some understanding that others have weighed in on the subject. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You, of course, could have simply respected the polcies and guidelines I already identified for you. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Policies and their application are misinterpreted and misapplied all the time, you provided no evidence that you "were not a solitary kook on a mission". This entire community is consensus based, so things change and/or are redefined on a regular basis. You're stance of "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't speak highly of desire for civil discourse. The template you posted above after a single change is an indication of that. The only way for someone to perceive that you are "taking the high road" is for you to actually do it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, plain and simple, if its truly the consensus of the community that Twitter links you've been removing from articles are not acceptable and the broad application of your interpretation of the Policy is correct, heck, I'll start helping out with the removal and probably never use the template again. I may even start another discussion as to why the template exists if its existence promotes its misuse.

Had you taken a different tact, quite simply your words and views would have more credibility with me, hence why I started the ANI just to get more eyes on the subject other than the few who have commented on the External Links talk page. I'm off the run errands now. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"you provided no evidence" Simply untrue. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian

Could you give me more explanation on why you reverted all of my edits to the Dan Bilzerian article? For example, I recognize there has been some back and forth on his talk page about him being (or not being) a legitimate actor, but he is currently listed (fairly high up) among the credits of a Bruce Willis movie now filming. I added that to his acting section and you reverted that. Why? Also, I attempted to fill out the description of him in the intro beyond simply "an American internet social media subject," which is a vague description that doesn't serve the Wiki reader very well, IMHO. Is there something more specific you feel could be used as a description? Thanks. JNorman704 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi JNorman704, first off if I have been reverting "all of [your] edits to the Dan Bilzerian article", its absolutely nothing personal and my apologies if it seems that way. This article comes up on the Special:PendingChanges list quite often and as a result its on my Watch list too. As you noted, "there has been some back and forth", but its not just limited to the Talk page. There has been quite a bit of Edit warring in the article plus several accusations that have resulted in Edit and Edit Summary deletions by an Admin.
I realize that the guy is subject to controversy and probably has as many detractors as he does fans, but that doesn't mean his article should be full of inaccuracies, fluff, or WP:UNDUE criticism. That said, your most recent edit looked a bit "PR-ish. Plus your edit contained collectively a variety of information that has been in the article previously, and been edit warred over. Assuming your efforts were sincere, given the the article's recent history it looked like "yet another Bilzerian fan" trying to make him look good on WP. We can discuss all of it on the Talk page to reach consensus about what and how to add the content. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Brandi Love

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brandi Love. 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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

[39] [40] --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Talkback

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayyan (model)

Hi, i did an edit on this page Ayyan (model) which you reverted, what was the reason? It was perfectly referenced and formatted. Why the revert? You can answer either here or a the talk page of the article (I have created a subsection) Sohebbasharat (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now I have seen it, it was already mentioned in the personal life subsection. My bad. I did not see that. Sorry for bothering. Sohebbasharat (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thank you for your note. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If you are referring to this edit[41], because of the previous edit, your addition equated to moving previous content from the Personal life section to its own, separate section. That was unnecessary as it created effectively a "controversy section" which is contrary to the WP:MOS. The content is currently part of this section Ayyan_(model)#Personal_life. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah got it, I actually wrote that without knowing that it was already in the Personal life section. Sorry. Thanx Sohebbasharat (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sue Rangell

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I tend to write to much an repeat my self. Always been forgetful. At gets worse with age. Just turned 68.

I was looking for what content can be in user space. My concern is sort of POV related. All valid views. But is a topic that is used in several separate areas.

Formal grammar is most commonly a production grammar. And in many text books on programming language construction "A formal language is defined by a formal grammar". To day that is mostly true on the surface.

Early metacompilers in their documentation said they use a reduction grammars. Seams here reduction grammars are analytical grammars. I found reduction grammar in McGraw-Hill technical term dictionary but analytical doesn't show up. That is not the issue.

The mathematical, computer science, and linguistics view are all valid POVs. My argument is that formal grammar should start off with a general description. Researching the topic I found linguist papers based in reduction grammars.

In some old metacompiler documentation they describe their language as a formal grammer. A metacompiler does define a programming language in its own language. That language is used as a specification language.

I basically put a user manual together for a matacompiler in my personal space to use in explaining a reduction language. Why I think they should be important. At least historical.

The short of this is: Is that a valid use? I found the essay use and looking at the essay list. Sue's essay on POV cought my attention. Where does one find specifics on all of this wiki etiquette. Personal space use etc.

My personal space on Schorre matalanguages.

Anyways I have been here a while but just recently ventured into editing. Mostly brought on by the metacompiler topic. Software tools having been my professional specialization for most of my working years. I managed the Kontron language development group in Anaheim Calif until they moved to Hayward Calif.

I refrained from editing because of the personal research restriction. But on technology topics first hand knowledge, experience, I think should be acceptable if unbiased and informative.

Steamerandy (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry was editin my post. Checking a spelling and continued. Seams to have caused the loss of some posts. Doing this on a phone so had to close out and come back.

Steamerandy (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Brittany Andrews

Sorry, I selected the wrong edit when I posted that. I was referring to was the removal of this edit. I apologize for my ignorance I'm trying to read and understand all the rules for posting. but I don't see how this line should not be in the article. Also I know her personally and I was wounder is there a way that I can quote her? I know that everything needs to have a source but I didn't see one to quote a person. Thank you for your quick help, response and understanding. 

Also in 2010, Time Out New York featured an interview with her in a story about people who have sex as part of their jobs.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

(Bilbobaggs0001 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)) (Bilbobaggs0001 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

References

No worries, I've been on here for several years and I'm learning new things constantly. Its just too vast of a site to know it all... :)
As for the content, it might be better as a source if there something interesting in the interview. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

  • Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
  • WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

Hello - can you explain why you didn't like the proposed changes to the criminal record section for this entry? Thanks! 86.174.193.10 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if your edits were in earnest, some times the Special:PendingChanges function gathers edits together which makes it difficult to discern which are productive or not. Your net edits left an orphan section "Criminal record (old)" which had no content. If I interrupted your edits while in progress, my apologies as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avy Scott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belladonna. 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) 08:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you have now accepted two separate edits (both of which have now been reverted) to add a link to High fantasy in the lead section of Super Mario? Previous consensus has led to that term not being added to describe the video game series. If you believe otherwise, it would probably be best to discuss on the article's talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, it keeps coming up on the Special:PendingChanges list, that's the only reason for my interaction. When I clicked the link and read the explanation, it seemed to apply. If there was concensus not to use the term, my apologies, I simply did not know about the conversation. It seems to be the same User, so someone should probably address that person directly. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Scalhotrod, just wanted to let you know that I responded to your response on my talk page, in the event that the Ping didn't work. Hope the diffs I provided display the discussions that have been happening over the course of the last 6 months. (By the way, I'm WP:AGF'ing as well, even though my tone might not have been clear in my response since all I did was provide diffs.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Critical Systems Inc.

this company needs better PR, plain and simple. Wikipedia is not for business listings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Dear, I was trying to create article about this company namely Critical Systems Inc. but not getting good response so what should i do? Is it possible for you to create article about this company? Regards Show-reality (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Show-reality, try posting it here Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies#C. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, Thanks for your reply. I have posted there and you accept it but i also have created the draft for this Draft: Critical Systems Inc. Please check. Show-reality (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Show-reality, I don't see any independent sources such as news stories in the links you provided. Nothing that demonstrates any Notability as far as Wikipedia in concerned. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was told to offer you more possible notable links for Critical Systems Inc. Hope i'm doing this the right way:

Tyankee (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)tyankee

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Playboy Playmates of 2011
added links pointing to MMA and 7th Heaven
List of Playboy Playmates of 2012
added links pointing to Horror and The Gambler

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

I have started an ANI discussion about you and the SV article.[42] Lightbreather (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It was gone before I got to the page. I wish you a speedy recovery. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Ayyan (model)

Hi Scalhotrod,

I am not sure why you reverted my edit at the Ayyan (model) page. I was just getting rid of the porno staraward 2010 heading an IP had tried to add. Captain Assassin! on the previous edit had added a couple sentences about the money laundering charges. That is a real story. It is all over the news. She is being detained without bail and is trying to pull in other models and politicians into the mix. I have found some additional sources that are more reliable. Here they are.

http://nation.com.pk/national/15-Mar-2015/detained-model-spills-money-laundering-beans

http://tribune.com.pk/story/853145/model-ayyan-arrested-for-money-laundering/

http://abbtakk.tv/en/money-laundering-case-decision-over-model-ayyan-alis-bail-application-reserved31032015/

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/international/2015/April/international_April4.xml&section=international

http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-178141-Pakistani-model-Ayyan-Ali-arrested-over-money-laundering-at-Islamabad-airport-

Do you have a problem with this being added in the article? The sentences were just stating what has happened so far that is verifiable in good sources.

Please let me know what you think about it.

Thanks, WordSeventeen (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My apology, I was trying to remove an unneeded section title. You were correct to remove that stray text. This article has been coming up on the Special:PendingChanges quite a bit lately and has been the target of vandalism. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. So you are ok with me adding the sentences back with say 2 or 3 of these better references? WordSeventeen (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Do more need to be added? It's already in the Personal life section with sources where it belongs. Please update the sources if there are better ones. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating Page for an Advertising Agency

Please consult the resources elsewhere on Wikipedia for article creation, Wikipedia:Your first article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Dear can you please suggest me if i or you can create Article about an advertising agency called Forza Migliozzi. Thank You Singh 04:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.sahota (talk • contribs)

First off, please sign your posts with "~~~~". Second, I would look up article for other advertising agencies to see if there is similar material available, List_of_advertising_agencies#North_America. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod Hi Thanks for your reply please check these pages i found to see the similar material on other advertising agencies Sid Lee, Crispin Porter + Bogusky and 72andSunny. am signing my post and am so sorry for the last time. Thank You it will shows my chosen nickname as sign - Singh 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't need the examples, I was recommending you use them. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

42 (number)

Hi,

Today I added my text to the article on number 42. "* 42 is the door that leads to the gateway out of heaven for Bobby Singer in Supernatural (season 10), Episode 17." It was deleted, despite it being factual. May be rephrased a bit, but there is a door 42 in that episode that is the entry/exit gateway to /from heaven! As reference to this I could've added an image from the TV screen as I did not look it up on the interenet since I did not need to, because I was watching the episode. Anyhow, here is a reference link: http://www.hypable.com/supernatural-10x17-recap/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmergl (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Kmergl, if you have a source, then please use it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Happy Easter
Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin/Thomas & Friends

I'm just letting you know, I'm not upset with you at all. I just wanted to clear things up and just to let you know what i was doing. I was changing the information of Thomas back to the way it was, the information int he article is false information and I was just changing it back. He was on the show until he left in 2002, he was not on the show in 2003, that's false. Look at the article Thomas & Friends, it even say's it right there that he was on the show from 1998 to 2002. So, can I please put it back the way it is in the past, please? Because another IP Address user made it all incorrect like that.

Please do, just please add a source so that matter can be put to rest... :) Happy Easter, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scalhotrod/Archive_33&oldid=1208615010"