User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 32

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
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.


 * Ashley Long
 * added a link pointing to Compilation


 * Free Speech Coalition
 * added a link pointing to AVN


 * Juelz Ventura
 * added a link pointing to Brazilian


 * Measure B
 * added a link pointing to Michael Weinstein


 * Tanya Tate
 * added a link pointing to MILF

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro Bowl and References
Hi. I noticed you've reverted some of the Pro Bowl updates made to various NFL player pages by an anonymous user, because of a lack of reference. It seems that the articles don't typically include a reference for things like that, which is perhaps an unfortunate trend, but I don't think reverting is the right thing to do in this case. I wonder if there's a forum somewhere that would address this. Gmporr (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was reverting things that came up on the Special:PendingChanges list per WP:CRYSTAL because they were in the future. I know about the basic updates about statistics and such with sports teams and players and routinely approve those. If there is an appropriate forum, I'm happy to participate. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; now I understand where you're coming from. But I guess I view the addition of Pro Bowl info to articles as reflecting their selection, not necessarily their participation in the game. Gmporr (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that's hard to tell without an Edit Summary either. No source and no edit summary when WP:CRYSTAL exists = revert for now. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Megan Young
In Megan Young, you reverted changing her successor as Miss World Asia from 🇹🇭 Nonthawan Thongleng to 🇮🇳 Koyal Rana, because "unsourced". However, according to List of Miss World Continental Queen of Beauty winners, her successor was indeed Koyal Rana, and Koyal Rana says she was Miss World Asia 2014 (although it is admittedly a bit confusing on this) whereas Nonthawan Thongleng isn't listed in List of Miss World Continental Queen of Beauty winners and her own page says nothing about Miss World Asia. I realize it's tempting to revert unsourced changes, but when the change can be checked by clicking the Wikilink, it's good to do so. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, after the 2nd time and I looked into it and saw that it was properly linked and attributed. On the most recent edit, I approved it, so there is no longer an issue as far as I am aware. Thank you for checking in. Happy Holidays! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 16:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Siddharth (actor)
Hi, i'm curious. I fixed a link on the above article and you reverted it - why? Denisarona (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon review I see that that WP's Rollback feature bundled your edit with several others. I'm never sure why it does this when articles are placed on the Special:PendingChanges list, but it happens on occasion. If your edit was legitimate, my apologies. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the doubt (if your edit was legitimate ..... ) Denisarona (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Moore and Ward
ok - you are edit warring disputed content into the life story of a living person - wp:blp - please stop it - use the deletion discussion or the blpnoticeboard WP:BLPN to resolve the issue - thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, You're a "day late and a dollar short" on this one. There's already been discussion on Noticeboards, an AfD, and there will probably be an ANI about the behavior of those involved and the long term abuse of the articles involved. But those are the breaks. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 14:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Josh3580talk/hist 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ward/Moore

 * No problem at all with withdrawing the deletion discussion under this situation. I can request closure with a decision to redirect. Do you really think though that a misadventure / killing such as this, minor reported, 15 years old, about two people of very minor note, with no continued reporting at all, is worthy of a notable wikipedia article? Govindaharihari (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you for your cooperative efforts. As for the solution we're proposing, I'm not trying to judge the content, but rather just preserve information that already exists on WP. I regard Notability as relative, what is minor or insignificant to one community, might be critical or of vital importance to another. That said, on a personal note, the "misadventure" involves the death of a person and I do not consider death insignificant. Granted, people die every day, but few have it documented in the press in such a public manner. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok - I have no personal pig in the poke, just tying to assist the dispute along to a correct conclusion within Policies and guidelines - my interpretation is that there is a degree of personal involvement in the desire to use wikipedia to publish this, I remain in the hope that wikipedia's viable enough to delete these two low note life stories thank you for the well presented reply. Happy holidays Govindaharihari (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No involvement on my end either, but I don't care for anyone trying to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia whether its personal or not, why else would someone go to such WP:SOCKPUPPET lengths. Once we create the unified article, I see no reason to keep the BLP articles. I can ask an Admin to speedy delete them. Happy Holidays! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Papa Johns
Sory but could you please be more specific as to why you chose to deny my edit? You state that I moved sections and de-emphasize the controversy section. Yes I moved the section, but only because there was another similar section which seem like they go hand in hand with each other (Lawsuits and controversies)....I also think this better emphasized the controversies because now instead of being listed under a Level-3 Heading, it is much more prominent with a Level-2 heading. I admit the titles could be improved for the subsections, but other than that Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's contrary to the Wkipedia Manual of Style and policy to emphasize "controversies" regarding people or subjects. Content based on reliable sources must be presented in a neutral manner, positive or negative information must be presented as a neutral reporting of facts. WP:UNDUE also states that content that is particularly positive or negative not be given preferential placement in an article.
 * If you review my subsequent edit you will see that I moved the material about lawsuits to a sections called "Litigation" and the rest to a section called "Media coverage". It looks like the article still needs additional cleanup. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlhgeo1990 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
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.


 * Diamond Foxxx
 * added a link pointing to TRON


 * Dorothy King
 * added a link pointing to Gender gap

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

IP editor
The IP has pointed out to me that by referring without qualification to the old nickname that was assigned to him in some quarters, I've implied I agreed that some of his edits were vandalism; in fact I don't. I shouldn't have left that up to you looking up the AN/I discussions. There is a now largely historical "long-term abuse" page at Long-term abuse/Best known for IP; it does not include vandalism among the complaints. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, There's nothing to apologize or explain to me about, I took no offense and see no reason to. As for that link, what a stupid thing IMO to delete and edit war over. Oh well, that person is probably very bored and lonely. Happy Holidays! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem completely unaware that falsely accusing someone of vandalism is a grave personal attack and highly disruptive behaviour. You did it twice.  I await your explanation and apology.  82.33.71.205 (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you are correct about one thing, I am completely unaware of what your are talking about. So providing difs would be helpful or if nothing else go towards giving you some credibility. From there I will decide if an apology is in order. Otherwise coming to my Talk page and making any kind of demand just equates to trolling in my opinion. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Scalhotrod, happy holidays to you. Let's move on. The IP is an old acquaintance--older than you, haha. The Green Egg says "chill". Merry Christmas And To All A Good Night, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, enough said. Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to you ...! P.S. I'm rotisserie-ing a New York strip roast tomorrow! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You falsely accused me of vandalism twice. If you don't even remember doing so, that only compounds your behaviour. Here they are:,. You don't get to decide if an apology is in order; it is. You do get to decide whether you want to admit your error and apologise for it, though, and I wait with interest to see what you decide. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that I have some frame of reference, I can comment. With regard to the first dif, you are correct. That was contrary to Talk page policy and that is why I changed the section title when it was brought to my attention. If you feel slighted by that, then my apology to you for the perceived insult, it was not intended to be one. As for the 2nd dif, that was the use of the "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments" template from Template messages/User talk namespace. It's the recommended and standard message for when an Editor changes another's comments. I was under the impression that you had added your comments after the conversation was closed since  had removed them, that is why I removed it and why I left the template message on your Talk page. That was an honest mistake on my part, but if you choose to feel slighted in any way from a minor thing that happened 4 days ago, that is your issue to resolve. I have taken  advice and moved on. With regard to future communication, you are on your second IP just for this one discussion. Until you register an account and use it consistently for communication, I request that you stay off of my Talk page. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and apology. With regard to the second point, you were editing my talk page comments; I was not editing anyone else's.  If I need to communicate with you in future, I will use your talk page, whether I have an account or not.  I do not foresee any such need.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For clarification, I removed "...your persistent trolling and stalking is not helpful to anyone, and is clearly not intended to be. Stop it....Rambling on incoherently...Stop trolling" as personal attacks. The IP has repeatedly restored it, despite numerous "reminders" (includes the admin mistakely believing the restoration was before their prior warning, not that further restorations proved to be a problem) not to make personal attacks. How many reminders the IP needs has not yet been established. I'm sure it will eventually sink in. After five years of warnings and blocks, we must be getting close.
 * To be clear: the material here have been repeatedly determined to be personal attacks. "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Unless someone would care to argue they are not, I will removed them. The IP, of course, is free to redact them, but apparently either does not understand what a personal attack is or that "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." (It would be the height of stupidity to speculate as to why they don't see sanctions/blocks as an impediment to their repeated personal attacks.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop stalking me. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here. Your accusation of stalking is therefore false. Following your lead, I would like an apology. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true, I pinged Summer . now owe her an apology for your unfounded and untrue accusation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Per this comment, the User known by 82.33.71.205 and 200.83.101.225 and any future interations is BANNED from my Talk page. Attempts to circumvent this will be considered Vandalism and/or Harassment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Have a bacon-filled new year!
As a member of WikiProject Bacon, I'm wishing you a very happy New Year's Eve and a great 2015! May your new year be filled with positive experiences, great wiki contributions, and of course, well-smoked thin-cut bacon. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
 * , Many thanks and the same to you!!! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (Peace, Love, and Happiness to all!)

Change on Larry Ellison page
Hi. I'm curious as to why you removed my edits to the page for Larry Ellison. My revision was accurate and referenced. Appreciate your feedback. Fishbones123 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see that you are new to Wikipedia, so first things first, Welcome to the site and community! No knowing how new you are to this community, it would have been helpful to you if I had been more detailed with my Edit Summary explaining the reversion. I should also explain that there was recently a content (actually more of a choice of grammar) dispute regarding this article, so its being watched a bit more than usual in addition to the fact that its a biography of a living person (BLP) article as well as someone that is fairly well known. Plus, you made your changes to the WP:Lead of the article, which is a summary of the key points of the entire article. Many Editors consider it the most critical portion of an article. It's usually not a place for such minute detail, judgements, or conclusions unless they are well documented in secondary sources. Basically, nothing should be in it that has not already been mentioned in the body of an article.


 * That said, both of your edits were somewhat problematic and brought up several core policies for all articles. Those policies are WP:UNDUE, Original Research, Synthesis, and Neutral Point of View and to a lesser extent WP:Paraphrase and the use of Wikipedia's "voice". In the first edit you added detail that, yes, was sourced and was lifted directly from the source, but it was out of context. In fact your source never mentions Ellison, nor did it compare his contributions to anyone. The addition of this information was effectively a judgement made about Ellison that you used another source to establish. That is not allowed per WP:SYNTH. In the body of the article if you had mentioned that "according to a 2013 Forbes article about the Ken Stern book With Charity for All: Why Charities Are Failing and a Better Way to Give about the philanthropy of the Forbes 400" the average giving was 5.3%, that's different. Even then its fairly POV laden by comparing Ellison with an average considering that he is #3 on the list and the earning of the 400 is such a wide spectrum. It also unfairly emphasizes the comparison with it in the Lead which makes it WP:UNDUE.


 * In the second edit, you removed text, "in particular after a motorcycle accident in the early 1990s" this was mentioned in the body and added "He was one of the first 40 to sign" which is not entirely accurate. He was "one of 40", but we do not necessarily know if he was #1 or #40 or where he falls on that list. Furthermore, and this ties back to the original comment about his giving, if you check the Charitabe donations section, it says that Ellison committed to "giving away at least 95 percent of my wealth to charitable causes." At this point, the comparison of his 1% to the 5.3% "average" is just misleading and prejudicial, bringing in WP:NPOV. Granted, its a WP:Primary source and that comes with its own set of issues and requirements, but its allowable in this context.


 * Hopefully this all makes sense. I've included relevant links and encourage you to read up on these policies. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

An extremely helpful and well-sourced reply. I appreciate your time. Although I do think Ellison is being, ahem, a little self-promotional about his charitable efforts. I'll be mindful of the things you've written about here, better references and avoiding POV issues, in the future. Thank you! Fishbones123 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Heh, find someone that wealthy that isn't... :) Chances are its one of his PR people and not him personally. But I'm glad that I could be helpful. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Content blanking
We don't blank entire sections of articles as you did here, so that they can be "restructured". I urge you to restore the material and make any specific edit proposals on the talk page, as is common practice.- MrX 19:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess contrary to your experience, its a method I have seen used elsewhere. Given that the article is a BLP, there has been edit warring over the content and sources of the section, and that its poorly written IMO, BLP policy permits my action. The fact that I moved it to the Talk page demonstrates my good faith and intention to keep content that everyone has contributed to and can agree on. Thank you for your suggestion. Happy New Year, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I have seen (and done) in the past is copy a section to the talk page to work on. I have removed sections and copied to the talk page of some low traffic, non-controversial articles, but I always invited any user to revert me. That seems to be what happened here, so I guess this is now a non-issue.
 * BTW, BLP does not permit content blanking except in unambiguous cases of unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. Happy New Year!- MrX 20:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, hence the blank and move, the Edit Warring was happening before I came along. But reverting is far easier for some than contributing actual work, oh well... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

:)
Well thank you for the very nice words. Now to be fair, I wasn't lazy, I just thought it would made more sense. But anyway thank you. :) (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC))
 * I'm very much in favor of "good ideas" and there are plenty that are applied to this site everyday. But, we have WP policy to follow as well, and when it comes to BLP articles there are a group of Editors who love nothing more than to ransack an OK article because they find literally a single unsourced claim. In fact, an Editor was just Topic Banned at WP:ANI for disruptive editing on BLP articles. Take care, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk on the article talk page of the William Shockley article
Hi, Scalhotrod,

Have you obtained any of the published books about William Shockley yet? I see that he is one of those guys such that "truth is stranger than fiction," and I've been very surprised by some of what I have found out about him as I have read books about him for the past several years. I am hoping to do a major expansion of that article--a Nobel laureate with a book-length published biography and several other book chapters written about him ought to have a Wikipedia featured article about him, methinks--but since 2010 as I have edited that article, I have often encountered reversions of edits by editors (often but not always I.P. editors) who have consulted exactly none of the sources. I think that we could make a lot of forward progress in improving that article by using the published, reliable, secondary sources to check article edits and using the article talk page to discuss edits as we go. For sources, I particularly recommend first about the history of the transistor and the development of electronics industry in Silicon Valley; second  about Shockley's whole life by his family's authorized biographer; and third  about Schockley and several of Shockley's colleagues in his later phase of political activism on issues other than electronics. Those books are all readily available from libraries. There are many other good sources about Shockley, but those books will be especially helpful for checking and rechecking article text as the article is expanded. By the way, the last time I adjusted article headings in the article my adjustments were (1) in view of the sources that I have already read, anticipating issues for the article expansion and improvement to good article status and then featured article status, and (2) based on a suggested outline for WikiProject biography articles I saw built into a template. I'm taking a look just now at the latest edits you have made to article, to make sure I can expand forward as I check the article sources exhaustively (which is what I have been occupied in doing the last two evenings). See you on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think that there have been some great edits (yours included) to the article recently and that its shaping up as a group effort quite nicely. I commend your intentions to expand it as well as develop it into a featured article. But at the same time, I feel that as an Encyclopedic article it should primarily focus on the technology side of his life and only tacitly mention his political, genetic, and/or anthropology views.


 * Shockley's article will obviously never be a replacement for any book written about him, nor should it try to detail every aspect of his life. I feel that the article should have a well developed "Further reading" section and facilitate as much as possible locating those books. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Killing of Dave Owen Ward
Just thought you should know (and any other editors you know who might be interested). Another reliable source was found for the Killing of Dave Oren Ward article.

Here it is from July 1999 in The Advocate:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qWQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=dave+oren+ward+los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=kGnC1adEik&sig=ZQT6ZBnneNQq9prqZzmIiaPfe9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3ZunVIbfDYLYoATX7YKYBw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=dave%20oren%20ward%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

In it the article mentions that Nate Moore was raised in Beverly Hills and his parents were a judge and assistant district attorney. Guess that's who those sockpuppets were pretending to be attorneys, Nate Moore's parents. Strange. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk)


 * Wow, interesting. Next to impossible to prove a claim like that, but if it were one or both parents that would explain a thing or too. Only a parent would show devotion like that to keep trying to remove the information. I can't say that I wouldn't do the same under those circumstances, but what a mess this has become. All the attempts at removing it are just encouraging people to expand the article and find more sources. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fassbender
Just dropping you a message so you know why I reverted that entry. It was discussed previously and consensus was to leave this type of temporary thing out. Murry1975 (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries, it came up on the Special:PendingChanges list, hence my involvement with the article at all. Thank you for the correction... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, its not possible to read every talkpage and see if every random edit is/isnt against consensus or just a random act. For the record, I think it was a random act, that just happened to be inline with consensus. Cheers bud. Murry1975 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock at William Shockley
Actually the sock investigation should reference Flyer322. That appears to be the sock master account. MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind - it's been blocked anyhow. MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, so did this correct it ? Somebody beat me to it... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
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.


 * Orchard Supply Hardware
 * added links pointing to Mountain View and North Beach


 * Joseph Gordon-Levitt
 * added a link pointing to USC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP
Hey Scalhotrod, please just leave it be. There is little good you can do here; I know you are of good faith, but it is the way it is. You can always vent on my page--or, if you like, drop me a line. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, as always I trust your judgement... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum
You reverted my reversion of your edit on Talk:List of model railroad clubs. You had initialy deleted another user's comments based on the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTAFORUM. That policy forbids the use of Wikipedia talk pages to discuss matters not related to the building of the encyclopedia. The comment you deleted related directly to the building of the encyclopedia by commenting on the validity of the article content. That type of talk page content is exactly what talk pages are for, and should not be deleted by other users. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, it was an opinion about "the validity of the article content". If such a thing is going to be discussed it needs be done at the appropriate Noticeboard or maybe the Village pump (proposals). The principles involved apply to all articles, just about a token amount of fairly meaningless topics relative to the rest of Wikipedia. A blanket statement on a Talk page like that is fairly blatantly POV and does not belong there. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe you're correct about that. The discussion of an article's contents should appear on the article talk page. The venues you mention would be appropriate for much broader topics such as changes to or violations of Wikipedia policy. The statement in question was not a POV, but merely a discussion of content related to relavent WP:MOS guidelines. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, a list of "clubs" (of whatever flavor) should not contain all clubs, but only notable clubs. In this case, the only notable model railroad clubs are those that already have Wikipedia articles, and therefore, the commenter was commenting on the fact that these are the only entries that should appear in the list. The fact that you don't agree with the comment does not make the comment invalid. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you're imposing an opinion or your interpretation as policy and the Admins generally don't like that. I see people get banned or blocked at WP:ANI on a regular basis for such a hard line stance.


 * 5 years ago (that's how old the statement was) somebody stated their opinion about what they considered "OK" for that list article. For the benefit of Wikipedia Project and the article itself, that's about as ludicrous of a position to take as possible. That person could have easily started a discussion like you have about what should be listed, citing relevant policy, and having civil discourse. But NO, they stated, "The only valid entries are as follows:". That's laughable, anyone making a claim like that at ANI would get shut down in record time. It's just not how the site works.


 * Again, I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory and that's why we don't have articles that are link farms without references that are a field of WP:REDLINKS. Those are Directories in the sense that you are describing. Feel free to disagree, but do it in the correct way and forum. Start with a search of relevant discussion at the List article Talk page. The Admins and project coordinators appreciate that too. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback?
Hello I left a new messge for you on the talk page for one of your other accounts I believe. Keeping things civil, would you please at your convenience tell me your thoughts. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any "other accounts", what are you talking about? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scalhotrod/Killing_of_Dave_Oren_Ward .....if you didn't create this user, then I apologize. You could see how I could make the error in assuming it was you. I wasn't accusing you of socking. I am honestly attempting to Communicate to you in a civil manner. For real.🐍 23:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)


 * That material is in my Sandbox space and allowable. It was also created before the mainspace article that was deleted, the history shows this. Given your blatant history of Sock Puppetry, I have no interest in communicating with you, please stay off of my Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That sure sounds like a hostile attitude. Especially given that your associate who you created the now deleted article was also Banned for two weeks for socking. But I'm attempting to move past this. My understanding of sandboxes us that they are not online or found in searches. Therefore why is this user page / article found online? Seriously it could appear that it was a preemptive attempt to "keep" a controversial article. If you don't want to erase it modify it that's fine. I'm trying to resolve the issue before discussing it with anyone else. Perhaps we should ask the admins what they think. Again, in the spirit of working with others, regardless of personal feelings, I am addressing this with you. Would you like to show everyone your ability to be a bigger person here? I am tryi🐍 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)ng to do that myself by reaching out to you. Or you could Continue to be hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark310 (talk • contribs)


 * I can't control how you interpret written text. On the other hand, you are a confirmed WP:SOCKPUPPET. I don't know (and don't care for that matter) if you are Nate Moore or one of his parents or someone else closely connected to him. But, your actions have shown me that you are here to do and say whatever it takes to accomplish your agenda. You are banned from my Talk page, do not post here again. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing RM discussions
You might want to read Requested moves/Closing instructions if you're going to be trying to close RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, was it contested? I've seen bickering over tv episode titles before, but the general consensus (meaning across several article discussion and Boards) has seemingly been to associate it with the series especially if there are numerous articles for each episode. I've seen Users revert citing Disam policy previously (and be reverted back again), but it really makes no sense once the rest of the episodes are similarly titled. The common sense approach would seem to have the episode articles all titled the same way with the series attribute. Is there any particular common sense in having some of the articles use NCIS in the title and others do not? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was contested; but it needs to be properly closed, as a record of the decision, and so that it no longer shows up in the listing of open RMs at WP:RM. The move is usually part of the close; closing is not optional.  In this case, it sounds like you are not neutral on the question, so you should just support, and wait for a neutral closer.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you mean procedurally. Got it, thanks. I'll go back and take a look. Thank you for the link to the instructions as well. :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant Mitchell
Hi

Can I please ask why this edit to Grant Mitchell (EastEnders) was accepted? It is clearly unreferenced and looking at the IP talk page and contributions they have not been editing constructively recently.

I notice that I had to warn you recently about a very similar edit to Tanya Branning. Please could you be more careful in future or you could end up with your reviewer rights being withdrawn. Thank you--5 albert square (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, in that particular instance that was WP:AGF in action. Based, in part, on the subject being a fictional character and given that I had just approved (as you noted) a similar edit for Tanya Branning which was clearly sourced, I AGF'd that the Editor involved was making a constructive edit as well and approved it. If that particular factoid was incorrect for that fictional character, I also assumed that someone more knowledgeable about the character or show would correct it since at first glance it was not obvious vandalism.


 * Also, as an Admin, you should know better than to toss out a threat like "or you could end up with your reviewer rights being withdrawn" when the Reviewer policy is clearly on my side. I spend a great deal of time on the Special:PendingChanges list. In fact, I usually start my day with a cup of coffee and a review of it. I have stopped being shocked or surprised when I see BLP articles that have gone nearly 24 hours without a review nor do I get upset about something as minor as the edit you have warned me about. Please could you be more careful in the future. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pariah (1998 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Turner and Joe Wood. 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) 09:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Twit comment
It is of course in response to Incidents, which you must know as you contributed to the debate. The editor evidently belives that it is perfectly OK to repeatedly use such language about another editor and about an admin who mildly admonished him for it. IMO, the dismissive tone of other editors at ANI is wholly disgraceful. If the consensus of editors at ANI is that it's perfectly OK, and that the complainant should "grow some blah blah" then the editor should expect to get what he gives without being protected from the potential suffering by other editors. If not, then the attitude at ANI is what's at fault. That was my point. Paul B (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you. And, trust me, I'm all too aware of the ongoing Civility debate across WP. I was neck deep in the muck and mire during the infamous "C-word" debates just a few months ago. It just seemed like your comment was a little "too heated". My apologies if I stole any of your thunder, I had the best intentions. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. No worries, as the Aussies say. Paul B (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny, I'm a Yank and use the same phrase often... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Research Invitation
Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Marge6914 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, If you don't mind the question, how and/or why was I selected? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects. Md gilbert (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, that page didn't really answer my question, but I'm happy to help. What do I need to do? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , That would be great! If you'd like, you can reach out to me at mdg@uw.edu and we can setup a time that works for you and answer any questions you may have. Regarding selection, at this point we're looking to specifically find Wikipedians who appear to have an established history with WikiProjects since our focus will be on understanding coordination practices within online teams, and future means of better supporting those practices.  Thank you again for your interest! Md gilbert (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I apologize for my tardiness... I found some of your comments on different WikiProject pages and thought you might be an excellent candidate! Marge6914 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mata Amritanandamayi and her 2012 attack
Hey, you and User:Amatulic have been in a bit of a disagreement over what should be included. I tried to rewrite the "2012" section, cleaning up the English and maintaining verifiability, while minding the talk page recommendations and mediation. This includes the BLP idea that Satnam's significance ends when he leaves Amma's life. I ended up effectively writing what User:Abhayakara came up with. I'm inviting you to have a look at it in my sandbox. --Anon423 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey HW, are you bored? Did your grandkids go back to school, empty house now? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Try not to fuck any monkeys or donkeys on your way to the popcorn stand, please. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean "fuck" in the broad sense, right? Any one step away from home plate is a step too far. Don't be tonguing fish or fingering chickens either. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG, ROFL... Literally!!!! This stuff is priceless! It makes RfA look like fun! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI of Lightbreather and Darknipples
Thanks for your input. I respect your weighing in and it indeed seems you have had many confrontations with Lightbreather. Your gut may be saying one thing however the evidence seems to indicate a likelihood of sock puppetry and I believe a check user would show that. Obviously I may be wrong and my review may be off but I believe the evidence justifies a checkuser. The tag teaming at the Gun show Loophole Talk page was what initial made me suspicious of a sock as that is one of the major reasons socks are created. I reviewed Darknipples and discovered she was practicing single purpose editing concerning gun politics and that I what Lightbreather was doing up until the topic ban according to her contribution history and then went right back to the same article Darknipples was single purpose editing. I do not believe that requires very much sophistication or creativity as you stated she was not capable of that sophistication. You may be right as I do not have the interactions you have had with Lightbreather but it seems rather simple to accomplish to me. Well there's my two cents and I like what you quoted above about wrestling with pigs. Ha Ha!!! 172.56.9.123 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless LB is bipolar, which I highly doubt, I don't see how there could be any credibility to this claim. Yes, obviously a checkuser review would reveal if they have IPs that link them, but the fact that an IP User has knowledge of and is recommending a fairly sophisticated procedure makes me dubious.


 * In my opinion, LB is working to build an encyclopedia as am I. I see enough real vandalism everyday when I review the Special:PendingChanges list. The habitual abuse that results from the actions of vandals is deserving of Checkuser attention, but not LB or DN. Personally I think its a waste of time and effort.


 * If you want an actual IMO WP:NOTHERE User to look into, check out Shark310. Already a confirmed Sockmaster with accounts that never even made a single edit. Now thats impressive effort to accomplish a single minded goal and hide true intentions. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I will sum up the negative comments regarding IP's as cultural bias and prejudice against IP's in the Wikipedia community. It's to damn bad IP's do so much constructive work which makes it hard to justify banning IP's altogether. Many registered editors would like to see that happen but Jimbo is a no go on doing that to his baby. I guess some feel that they submitted and registered therefore so should everyone else. Of course registered editors cause many problems like sock puppetry to steer their POV into articles and Tag Teaming the dissentor. I little sarcasm. I guess being typical and registering is not for everyone. Of course if I registered and came with my knowledge the bias against the new guy in the group would also be viewed suspiciously. Ahhh! the group and group think. How about the evidence, or doesn't that matter anymore? As far as another editors mental status I have no hard evidence to go on, just their behavior, although you might be onto something with your commentary above. I will put forward that spending hours on the web editing for free and facing all kinds of harassment might qualify as a mental condition. A little self-retrospection. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note are you rooting for Seattle or GB this weekend? I think Pete Carroll is an awesome coach and got shafted at USC. So go!!! mythical Seahawks And for the record I am here to build a better Wikipedia and sometimes that means policing against abuse which is quite unpopular but sometimes I guess we are forced to wrestle with pigs even if they enjoy it. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ummm... 172 again? Anyway, you're preaching to the choir with regard to prejudice against IPs. Heck, I even stood up for them in an essay I wrote, WP:Don't be a WikiBigot. But the fact remains that IP edits remain the bastion of the spineless who wish to hide in the shadows and not be accountable for their actions. There are more than a few vandal, SPA, or WP:NOTHERE IPs that give the productive ones a bad reputation. But heck, how many projects get throngs of Users to devote so much time and effort (and angst) to building something that only a relative few earn a salary managing?


 * Sorry, I'm not that Rah Rah about sports except for the occasional local game. Now if its got wheels... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Scalhotrod, I don't care all that much about professional ball sports athletes except when local teams are in championship contention. They should pump gas or sell used cars in the off season, as far as I am concerned. I grew up appreciating Don Garlits and Ed "Big Daddy" Roth, and building scale models of their cars. Later, I became a fan of hardcore mountaineers and rock climbers. There are few multi-millionaires among that elite crowd, despite the recent burst of "Dawn Wall" publicity.


 * As for IP editors, some are productive while many are problematic. I am unsure of the ratio, but it is the rare IP editor who achieves respect as a highly productive and experienced editor here. Partially, that is a mnemonic issue. My brain can't handle long strings of digits, but can easily remember a handle containing the character string "...hotrod". Since collaboration is so important on this project, remembering people and their reputations is also important. I have spent over five years pondering IP editors' explanations for why they don't want to sign up for an account. I find every such explanation stunningly unpersuasive. But it is what it is. Edit away, IPs! Just follow policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I had no idea you were a fellow gear head! I've met Garlits a few times, cantankerous old fart, but a brilliant guy. I saw Roth at the Oakland Roadster Show before he passed away. Equally a "character". I have stories about a bunch of the "big names" of hotrodding... :)


 * And I agree, IPs should be left to their own devices until they need reeling in or corralling. I do make the effort to not become jaded since I review the Special:PendingChanges daily. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, buddy, I am not much of a gear head, since my vision is deteriorating as I approach 63, and my Harley is in the garage. These days, I drive cheap Hondas at or below the speed limit. But I am still alert enough to keep an eye on things here, and you are a better than average editor, in my view. Staying "unjaded" is a good thing. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, that's quite nice of you to say. Hey Honda makes some good stuff...! Lately, I stick to trucks, cheaper to work on and more room to bust knuckles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Mechanical spendor

 * Hotdog j/k you said "IPs should be left to their own devices until they need reeling in or corralling". I would note that applies to all editors. If it has big tires, is JD green and goes pop, pop, pop I am all in. I do have a thing for some older red ones as well but they don't make that popper sound (tractors, not over the hill redheads). Cars tires are just to small for putting down the field. I am willing to race as long as it includes pulling a 4 row plow. I forgot to add big steam engines as well. The ones that weigh 40 tons and have steel rims 8' in diameter. Now that is heaven to see one of them moving and somewhat intimidating if you are near one moving along at full speed 2.8 mph. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have quite a collection of pictures of steam powered tractors and many are in operation (moving). I should upload some of them at a later date. My grandfather used to be part of the threshing bees in the 20's and thirties. They still used big steam powered tractors in that period but those days were coming to an end but I have been blessed enough to see some demonstrations. Cullen I will not bore you with an explanation but I can say I find explanations for signing up stunningly unpersuasive as well. Just the flip side to consider. I also have a Honda but it has only two wheels, yeh it's not that cool but I am no outlaw biker wanna be. I just like picking the bugs out of my beard and teeth. I hope to ride until I am 80. My grand pappy rode a Harley (1918 edition) in the Great war and never again. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, those giant Best beasts. There's one in Northern California that gets brought out for one of the Maker Faires each year. My father and I enjoy seeing "trackless locomotives" whenever we can. As for the smaller stuff, I don't have any Green ones at the moment, we have one Red and one Yellow crawlers plus an Oliver Cleetrak, I'm not sure what color those were. I've been looking for a Ford wheeled one with a box drag and a bucket, a 600 series would be nice. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

For tips, please see. 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) 00:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirects
Hello Scalhotrod - I note that you created a couple of redirects last week, from the Dave Oren Ward and Nate Moore (actor) pages to other articles you felt were appropriate. (The latter one you redirected to a film that had no relevance to the actor, but that seems to have been resolved.) Based on your edit summaries, I take it that you decided to do that because there were still Google results pointing to the deleted articles.

I'm afraid you may have some misunderstanding of how long it takes for Google to recrawl Wikipedia; it is commonplace for pages not to be recrawled for up to a week. Thus, it is likely that Google just hadn't got around to recrawling the page and removing the links to Wikipedia for these two non-notable individuals; remember that those redirects had gone to another article until less than 72 hours before you recreated the redirects. Since that time, neither page has had more than a handful of "hits", and these would likely be explained simply by the discussion of the redirects themselves. And of course, because the redirects exist, there are Google results for them.

Would you please consider allowing me to delete these redirects without having to go to RfD, as a "housekeeping" measure? Given the amount of downright weirdness involved in all the relevant AfDs, I'd like to avoid opening those doors again. I'd also be happy to have an independent administrator look this over and determine whether CSD G6 or G8 would work here. Please let me know your thoughts. Risker (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As much as I am in favor of the smooth running of this project and the housekeeping that goes along with it, I do make the effort to operate with integrity and in the best interests of the average Reader. That said, Shark310's actions have been questionable on so many levels, that I genuinely don't know what to believe (or trust) from that User. This is added to the fact that neither of us is WP:UNINVOLVED at this point. Shark's newbie ignorance of the site, its policies, and norms have lead to canvassing that unfortunately includes you. I'm still wondering when Shark will figure out that their efforts have created far more attention and content than if they had just left well enough alone. So at this point, AGF only goes so far when the overall actions and contribution history of a blatant Sockmaster seem to go unnoticed or unexamined. IMO you are one of several that should be distancing themselves from this mess, not furthering it. AGF notwithstanding, Shark may have made some impassioned plea to you via email and that's what is driving this request. Maybe I'm still a little jaded from Eric Corbett/Lightbreather/"C"-word/Civility debacle late last year, but I can't understand why no one has told Shark to give it rest for a while and stop trying to manipulate the site.


 * Then again, maybe I'm making too big a deal out of Shark's numerous Socks (used, unused, and suspected) and the fact that their contribution history indicates a WP:SPA relating exclusively to Moore. I'm not an Admin (although I'd like to be some day), I'm just one person who contributes time and effort every day via the Special:PendingChanges list where I observe real vandals and those that are WP:NOTHERE.


 * At the beginning, I was uninvolved until I saw the BLPN request and even then I could have cared less about either person, Moore or Ward, but then Socks started coming out of the woodwork over supposedly non-notable people. From my previous experience, creating an article about the related event (Ward's death) would or should have satisfied the needs of any Editor that was WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, but were it not for Shark's persistence, we would not be having this discussion. I don't know who Shark310 is and I don't care, but so far they have hit up 2 Admins, and yourself, to further their efforts. This person is single minded in their purpose and participation on Wikipedia


 * As for the redirects, I do not think either needs to go considering that BLP articles had existed for each, plus there are reasonable destinations for each name. Given that Ward is deceased and his information is now "finite", a redirect to his last movie seems fitting especially when there is a source that specifically mentions his death after its filming. Moore for that matter is out of prison and seemingly attempting to work as an actor again, in theory he has potential to become notable by WP standards. But at the very least, someone who is uninvolved should decide this based on all the facts of this complicated mess. From my perspective there's been too much deception and hidden agenda on Shark's part to just conveniently make everything disappear. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts, Scalhotrod. (The post is on my user talk and readily viewable, if you're interested.) Nonetheless, when the last article got deleted, I fully expected that the redirects were gone too. I'll give it a bit of thought about RfD-ing them, and will let you know if I do so. Yes, people can sometimes be single-minded; most new users are, though.  Risker (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * thank you to you for taking the time to reach out before taking any action, its appreciated regardless of the outcome. As for new Users, I'm very much in favor of zeal and enthusiasm even if its scope is limited. But Shark has crossed the line and someone should really be asking why. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:User:Scalhotrod/Danica Dillon


Hello Scalhotrod. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Danica Dillon".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, this whole process took place in the time it took me to go to church this morning. Notice posted and then deletion in under 2 hours. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

32nd AVN Awards
Hi .. I just finished adding to the 32nd AVN Awards page (I'm the original creator of the 31st, 30th, 29th, 28th and 27th awards pages). I really appreciate the work you and Guy1890 did on the new 32nd awards page (and all the work that mostly he did fixing that mess Squeakbox made on the 31st awards page). I'd like to make a suggestion and hear what both of you have to say.

On the other award years that I created, I only listed all the nominees for awards that were actually handed out at the show, on the assumption that if AVN doesn't deem them important enough to hand out during the show, then they're not major awards (most get handed out either before or after the actual ceremony). The 32nd awards page presently has all of the nominees (except the fan awards, I think). That took a ton of work! How do you feel about eliminating the nominees (after the awards show) for categories that weren't presented at the show? (We'd still list the winners though, and nominees for the categories that were part of the show.) Personally, I like having all the nominees there, but I've had to fix so much vandalism to the other five years' worth of pages that if this page gets vandalized like the 31st awards were, it would be horrendous to fix (and unfortunately, based on past experience, I expect it'll happen much too often!). And I'm not sure how many people care about things like who was nominated in manufacturer categories, for example. But I'm happy to go along with what you two think, especially since you did all the work. I also don't want to delete a bunch of nominees and have you folks think it's more vandalism, when all I wanted to do was shorten the page a bit and make it a bit easier to unvandalize!

One other thing I might ask: In the other years awards pages, I made almost no references to the company names (except in the company categories). One of the early crticisms I had was someone saying with all of them there, it's too much like a promo for these companies. I think that's likely true — the Oscars pages, for example, make no mention of whether Fox or MGM or whoever created "Grand Budapest Hotel", for example. I'm sure the industry really wants them there, but I kind of wonder if the Wikipedia users care — I suspect they don't and would probably prefer a cleaner page. But I'm interested in hearing what you two think. Thanks again for all your work! -- Pumik9 (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , so great to hear from you!! Yes, yes, I am more than happy to standardize the article with the others. I think eliminating the noms for the non-ceremony announced awards is fine. In fact, I think its in line with how the Oscars operate as well. As for companies, if enough have their own articles, I'd say its worth inclusion. Perhaps we need to take a look at the winner list over the last few years to see if there are any companies that are worthy of an article that do not have one. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, I'm glad we're thinking alike, and Guy1890 seems to be in agreement as well. When I had created the pages for the 27th to 31st awards years, I specifically made them almost identical to the corresponding years for the Oscars pages, specifically to wipe out arguments from the vandalism crowd, because if they disagree with something on the AVN Awards page they must disagree with the same thing on the Oscars page. I've found that to be kind of helpful in getting rid of arguments from a couple of them. Let's leave all the nominees there for now, though, and hope people don't vandalize the page. Then next weekend I should have time to re-format it a bit (knocking out a bunch of the lesser nominees) and add the winners (unless you or Guy1890 beat me to it)! Thanks again for all your help! -- Pumik9 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lexington Steele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolf of Wall Street. 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) 09:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bill Belichick
You shouldn't have included me in your revert. Take a look here and you'll see that my edits were absolutely justified. Kingjeff (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, my apologies for that, it wasn't "me" per se, its how Wikipedia bundles pending change edits for review. It does make it next to impossible to sort "good from the bad". If you remake the changes, I'll be happy to approve them assuming they are within the guidelines. This happens on a regular basis to all of the Reviewers. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Playboy Playmates of 2014, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maxim, Stylist and St. Augustine High School. 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) 09:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning removal of unsourced content
Unfortunately, the edit summary here shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. I removed unsourced content, and stated in my edit summary that lack of sources was one of the reasons for the removal. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." Since you have made a mistake about that policy, and restored unsourced content without providing any citation to any source, reliable or otherwise, can you please self-revert? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I understood your intention, but the volume of the material you removed is the primary issue. In recent months, bans and blocks have been handed out at WP:ANI for unilateral actions such as this without any discussion. This has applied to WP:BLP articles as well, even the strict nature of that policy was not justification for removal of significant amounts of content.


 * That said, the preference is to discuss your concerns on the Talk page or bring it to the attention of the members of the related Project. To facilitate the process of cleaning up the article and adding appropriate references, I have started a discussion on the Talk page. I do not see your name listed on the Pornography Project, so you may not have known that we routinely discuss topics like this especially in the wake of similar edits made by now banned or blocked Editors.


 * If you are willing to help improve the article by adding references, I encourage you to do so. If you are not, then I ask that you give me time to work on the article as well as enlist assistance from other Project members. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you give me examples of editors who have been blocked or banned for removal of large quantities of unsourced content? In view of the fact that such removal is in line with policy, I would find such a block or ban remarkable.


 * Editors are, of course, free to form themselves into groups called "projects" on subjects in which they have an interest, but doing so does not give them the ability or right to over-ride policy, nor does it give them any more authority over article content than any other editors. I repeat once more that Wikipedia policy forbids the restoration of unsourced content which has been removed without providing reliable sources, and I therefore ask you once again to self-revert. Having done so, you are of course perfectly free to try to find reliable sources for some or all of the content, but unless and until you do so you must not restore the removed content. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)


 * I assure you, I'm not trying to override or usurp policy, but rather prevent any unwarranted attention or protracted debate over a recent "hot topic" issue. The most recent example that I can provide is for that of User SqueakBox who is currently under a Topic banfor all pornography related articles. This was the result of a prolonged series of deletions across numerous porn related and BLP articles combined with a refusal to admit any fault or a willingness to change their behavior. I personally found the outcome unfortunate, as I considered the User a fairly diligent Editor.


 * My apology if I came across as somewhat alarmist, but your edit was nearly identical to several of Squeakbox's early edits being that it was substantial (roughly 40% of the article) and was not preceeded (at least that I could find) with any communication on the Talk page for the article or the Project.


 * For the record, I agree with you that Projects do not and should not override Policy, but the active participants do typically have a deeper and more contextually relevant understanding of recent events with regard to the subject matter of the Project. I find this to be especially true of the Film, LGBT, and similar Projects where content changes rapidly and norms for how this content are handled have evolved. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan rename
Just wanted to let you know. Despite the rename proposal going through with a 100% consensus, editor RightCowLeftCoast has jumped in again within a day of the discussion being closed and the article renamed and has requested the article name be returned to before and plus merge the 2015-present article into the 2001 one. Your arguments and opinion from before would be appreciated once again at the talk page. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Beware the 1RR
Gamergate is under 1RR in case you're not aware. Personally I'd count that first revert as probably under BLP, but I just wanted to make sure you're aware in case someone tries to make a big deal out of it. — Strongjam (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It came up for review on the Special:PendingChanges list. I simply responded to the Edit Summary left by the Editor that changed it. I read the Talk page afterwards and saw all of the warnings. I made some suggestions as well. If its such a problem, I'll just stay away. Thanks for letting me know. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Just saw the second revert and thought I should just give you a heads up. I don't mean to chase you away! — Strongjam (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)