User talk:Scalhotrod/Archive 34

Szekely Land
Hi, man!

Why are are deleting referenced material? If you do so at least explain your change and provide reference to it.

Thanks, ID — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep adding unsourced material, please stop. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, man! My material is not unsourced. I'll report this on the noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That didn't go so well for you, bummer... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

GSL merger proposal
Text is a bad way to convey tone, so just to clarify the "please explain" wasn't rhetorical - I'm keeping an open mind about this. Either way, thanks for the input. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey FE, thank you for acknowledging that and I couldn't agree more! You know that generally I'm on your side on most GP debates and I can understand the desire to combine them, but its the potential motives of current and future POV editors that worries me. I realize that right now LB is in favor of keeping the articles separate, but if they are combined whats to stop LB from making the article a promotional piece for UBC. Right now the UBC article reads like a promotional piece written by the Brady group. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Heartland Institute lede
Greetings! I agree the lede needs to be rewritten. Please let us collaborate on the body and then circle back to the lede. If we get the body right, the lede will be easier. Thanks! Hugh (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, of course, of course! At first glance the article looks sourced properly and not in need of any massive revision or deletion, so I'm working from the assumption that its more of a cleanup effort than a Major Copy Edit or full rewrite. Once that's accomplished, the Lead should be easy work. It's not the first time I've seen POV pushing and subject bashing like this. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement
You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 18 of 2015. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 19:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Scott (pornographic actress)
Hi there. I've undone your move of the above article as it contradicts the requested move outcome actioned by on 2 April and again by me on 7 April. If you have an issue with the article title, please discuss accordingly rather than ignore consensus, however small. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 03:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Need assistance from users who know well the MOS:LEAD policy
Extra opinions are necessary at Talk:Székely_Land regarding the inclusion of the name. Thanks in advance for your help. 178.143.92.15 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya
Apparently I stated my opinion as fact. Could you specify which opinion of mine you are referring to? I was under the impression everything I wrote in the lead was all already established as fact in the article. 1cairo (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , your edit came up for review on the Special:PendingChanges list. At first glance, I could not easily determine what part of the article your summary was derived from. If it is based on content from the article, then I would say that its likely WP:UNDUE for the Lead. Per WP:LEAD it is intended to be a summary of the major points of the article and not minority views unless it is significantly substantiated in the article. If you think this material belongs in the Lead, then I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page. It does not appear that you have participated on it. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am still not sure I understand. What have I said that is a "minority view"? What point did I make which is not a major point on this subject? If someone chose to object on the talk page I would be happy to discuss, but I am not sure what a person who knows about the subject would object to. 1cairo (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then what section or sections were you summarizing with your edit? Please link to it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Davis
Hello, I am pretty new to wikipedia and I apologize if what I added was deemed as trivia. I just thought that Mark Davis's page was a little small considering he is a majority owner of one of the most storied franchises in the NFL. I felt that the additions I made would be helpful to people looking to learn more about him, being that there is no personal life section. I understand the facts are a little random but are they not better than no facts? Also, is the fact that he graduated from California State University, Chico not trivia? Why does that stay on the page and what I added have to be removed? Any response would be greatly appreciated.Evan smellentine (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)evansmellentine
 * Hi, thank you for your message. To answer your questions, let me start by saying that articles about living people, or what we call BLPs in Wikispeak, are THE MOST watched, scrutinized, and monitored category of articles on Wikipedia. Even an article as small as Davis' will drawn attention if its not edited according to site Guidelines and Policy.


 * That said, most basic information about person, especially things like where they went to school, are acceptable. But its best to be careful about personal and family information. This is just meant to be an encyclopedia entry, not a full biography. Plus, its limited by available sources (what has been published about the person that is factual and reliable) versus editorial or opinion pieces. People had plenty to say about Al, his father, but much of it isn't suitable for his article, nor should every opinion about Mark for that matter.


 * Let me go back and see what I can do with your content and then we can go from there. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding hot rod. I just skimmed through the Al Davis page and it looks like there isn't much related to his personal life. Just his early life. I appreciate the help and please don't feel any pressure to try and make my edits work. Evan smellentine (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)EvanSmellentine

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

ABC World News Tonight
You recently reverted the inclusion of the fact that since March 30, 2015 that ABC World News Tonight is no longer shown on BBC News so hopefully a link to the last ABC World News Tonight was at 01:30 Friday 27 March (You'll notice that the page is on Thursday 26 March)Navigate through the page and navigate through all following pages Monday - Thursday and you will see that I am correct http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcnews/programmes/schedules/2015/03/26 I await your response, also I was looking at BBC News today at 01:30 and it still was not on the screen 213.94.145.91 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, the article came up for review on the Special:PendingChanges list. I saw that an edit was made, but no source was added or updated and rejected the edit on that basis. The source you provide is a WP:PRIMARY source. It can be used to state what "is" or "is not" about a subject, but cannot be used to make a statement regarding a change. If you have a secondary source that makes this claim, please use it when making changes to the article. By the way, citing 2 different or multiple sources to come to a conclusion is not allowed, it falls under WP:SYNTH. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The source that was used came from the BBC itself also I do frequently watch BBC News too and I have not seen it on since the last program was aired with this reference from the BBC also states "no upcoming episodes" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04j5j0j No conclusion is needed it is self apparent, it was previously off air between June 2011 and August 2012 Also up to April 17 it is still not on air. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcnews/programmes/schedules/2015/04/16 Again no conclusion required If the BBC source is not good enough then I am at a loss as to what a good source is. This source is "straight from the horses mouth"83.71.110.182 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, and somewhat hard to assess
Thanks for attention paid to Anthony Watts (blogger). Your edit summary indicated that in the one massive diff you deleted some unspecified questionable sources. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see a list, so we don't have to run our own reference side by side comparison to figure it out. Is that something you can produce easily? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, yeah, sorry, I tend to edit like that. I just keep hitting the Preview button until I'm OK with hitting Save. I guess no one can accuse me of trying to pad my edit count. As for the ref I removed, it was the one for the block quote that would have been in the "reception and review" section. It referenced a Google book written in Japanese. The way it stuck out and what it said (assuming you trust the translation) given the other criticism, it didn't really make much of a difference. Lots of people seem to bash the guy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point; however I suggest you explain that on the talk page since there seems to be some, uh, shall we say hasty reverting going on. Without this explanation your fine work might also get hastily reverted, especially if you meant a single source was removed (but your edit sum I think said sources, plural).  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Watts (blogger), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blogger. 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) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Scalhotrod:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 19 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by User:Northamerica1000 on 12:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) using Mass message sender.

Mary Jean Lastimosa
Hi. I'm a huge fan of Mary Jean Lastimosa. And I can't edit her page because you deleted it. Please don't delete my contribution for this page because I want that other pageant fans to be updated on what's happening to her. And I am living in the Philippines so I am more updated on what is happening to MJ. We should take turns in editing or contributing because we wan't to make her page better. I hope you will not delete my contribution to this page. Thank You! By the way I am Allyson Fernandez from the Philippines. (GMT+8) 17:38 2015/April/13
 * Hi, please cite sources for the content your are adding to any article otherwise it will be removed. Information, especially about living people, needs to be sourced with a reliable source to insure that it is true and accurate. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning: Discretionary Sanctions in the area of Climate Change
jps (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ...and you're leaving this here because...? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You should be made aware of this because of your activities at Anthony Watts (blogger). jps (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the notice, but nah, I'm pretty much done there. I did my WP:GOCE review and did a few cleanup edits, but I'm not getting involved any further. There's clearly some POV pushers there and that's not a scene I'm interested in. It's off my Watchlist as of my last edit.


 * If you want to be conscientious, you're much better off posting that template on the article's Talk page so its more readily known. Sometimes individual postings on User Talk pages are interpreted as aggressive or even a Personal Attack. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think associating the warning with the article/talkpages would be a lot more sensible way to run things, but, alas, no one has bothered to code up a flag for articles under discretionary sanctions which would preclude the need for this absurd ritual. jps (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there IS a template... a long form and a short form.  For example the bottom of the header at Talk:global warming.   In last years DS overhaul it was extensively discussed whether banner notices at article talk are sufficient, and the community was strongly of the opinon that they are not.   Besides I could make a WP:ARBCC enforceable remark at NFL, Cookie, or Leviticus but it would be inappro to banner those articles for every DS topic.    As for aggressiveness, the newer warmer fuzzier DS ALERT template was thoroughly rehashed for the express purpose of culture change.  They are intended as no-fault FYIs that require nothing more than sticking one's toe in the water of the topic.   The old system sort of presumed some misdeed before giving the "warning", so the decision was made to change to an expressly no-fault FYI "alert".   I nearly templated you myself, just because I template nearly EVERYBODY who appears in the climate pages.   Templating EVERYBODY is the only way to bring about the desired culture change.  Otherwise all we've changed is the wrapper, but the templates are given/taken the same as the old 'warnings'.   Anyway, thanks for your mostly copy edits there.  A lot of good stuff seemed to have been chucked by the warriors, more's the pity. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I totally missed the tan one at the top of the page, it just blends in with everything else. One like you left on my page would make much more sense to post and be more obvious to the average visitor. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What would make more sense is if we just had a piece of code that would non-judgmentally alert people that they were editing a page that fell under the relevant discretionary sanctions every time they hit "save" on an article that was flagged as such. This kind of code would be extremely useful in doing other things eventually too such as enforcing topic bans (which is now done primarily through a ridiculous game of having the topic-banned guess as to which articles are intended to be included). jps (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have lobbied vigorously for that very thing off and on, but it is always shot down.  The one objection I have heard and for which i have no rebuttal is that the community feels that mere copy editors should not be harassed with these.  That's a valid concern and a good goal, and the server can not be expected to tell copy edits from substance edits like a human. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)   PS And since I knew that, I did not issue the template here.  On the other hand, there is no caution against doing so in the guidelines, and I would oppose the addition of such a restriction on grounds that it would impeded the new culture that it's just FYI.   If there's any text that ever says "don't" then that's a new thing to fight about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's a really good idea. It could be as simple as the script that checks to see if a User has entered and Edit summary or not. In this case, it would just respond to code on the page. Like a special magic word like or something similar. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Persuade me that it will not become just another thing to patrol against, or when push comes to shove we won't bog down in fights whether claims of a

"I was just copy editing" are valid. Also there are reasons I did not go into why auto-templating as I described would miss some substantive edits, so auto templating would still be supplemented by manual human templating....raising the possibility that I then template a copy editor. Anyway if you want to champion this, direct your input to the ARBs please. They do periodic reviews, after all.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Mere copy-editors" sounds like there is a group here that thinks there is some sort of magical cloak you can wear that will immunize you from arbitration enforcement. That belief is neither true nor is it something that is liable to become true. It's not harassment to let people know they are copy-editing an article that is subject to weird additional rules. Oh well, we'll just have to keep reaching for that rainbow. jps (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides. Part of me agrees with jps, but another part understands that the DS topic areas will be passed over by some otherwise excellent copy editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Indian Premier League
Hi, any specific reason for holding back so many revisions on this page? You cited issues with the source, however, all the requisite sources are there on the page. Other reason could be sudden activity which is quite possible as the Match 9 got over and there were updates related to match.
 * That was the Special:PendingChanges function that did that and unfortunately it won't let Reviewers separate edits. There were so many that I could not tell what was accurate and sourced or not. My assumption is the conscientious Editors return to correct things like this. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Calling all WikiProject X members!
Hello fellow member! WikiProject X needs your help!

We studied the various needs that WikiProjects have, and have come up with some ideas for our first round of WikiProject tool development. These include:
 * An automatically updated WikiProject directory that surfaces WikiProject-related metrics and automatically generates a list of active participants and potential members;
 * A lightweight, optional alternative to WikiProject banners, featuring an option to quickly send a message to the named WikiProjects;
 * A tool that bootstraps WikiProjects; and
 * A worklist generation script for WikiProjects

We are now looking for volunteer coders to work on these projects. If you are interested in developing these tools, or if you would to volunteer for other tasks, check out our new volunteers portal. Thank you for your help!

Cheers, Harej (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Walter Scott
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Walter Scott. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3
Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:
 * A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
 * An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BLPPrimary
As you are aware, I consider WP:BLPPRIMARY violations to be BLP violations. Last we discussed this, I suggested an RfC would be a good next step. --Ronz (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't consider your personal opinion nor your mis-interpretation of policy worthy of any attention. Furthermore, if you are going to be anti-Canadian (the award you keep deleting the mention of and source for is based in Canada), that is your choice, please stop applying your personal bias to Wikipedia. This is not the first time you have brought up this subject nor is it the first time its been discussed with multiple uninvolved Editors. The consensus was that the inclusion of these awards is fine if its limited to the mention of a win or nomination, but not for analysis or statements such as "first person to win...", "won the most..." etc. So it would seem that you are doing this to make a WP:POINT. Please stop. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Do WP:FOC
 * "The consensus was" - where was that consensus made and what was it based upon? --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been quite a bit of discussion in a variety of places, so I can understand if its been difficult for you to follow assuming that you have actually looked for it. If not, you might want to start, as usual, with the Porn Project Talk page. Its also been a topic of discussion in the Film Project. Please, take all the time you need to carefully read it and understand what is being discussed. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to believe that there is some consensus somewhere. You're saying that it exists. Please indicate where. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed you to two sources of discussion and that is all the effort that I wish to put forth in order to reduce your ignorance of the situation. I encourage you to look into either Talk page in order to get better informed as to recent discussions. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies
I apologize for aggressively trying to get you to address policy concerns regarding the long running edit-war over the use of primary sources. Can I assume that you made all the reverts without an edit summary of any sort out of anger? If so, I'm sorry that my actions got you so worked up. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , Thank you for apologizing, but your assumptions are what is making a mess of this entire situation. You're also working "both sides of the aisle" by courting Hullabaloo Wolfowitz as a supporter of your cause. There was another User that did that and had a cause similar to yours directed at Porn BLPs. He believed strongly that he was doing the correct thing, but he's since be Topic Banned and was site blocked temporarily as well. Since you seem to have an issue with so many articles that fall under the domain of the Porn Project, I suggest you bring your concerns there. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ...
for the beer. I appreciate the kind thoughts, too. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Scalhotrod:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 21 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 00:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mormons
did you even chaeck the changes I made? 118.93.85.100 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. By the way, if you type slower, you might not make so many spelling errors. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If u edit slower you might not make so many editing errors. 118.93.85.100 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one with the long list of Edit warnings on their Talk page. Please try to learn about WP policy and editing standards. You're recent edit summaries alone are enough to earn you a temporary block. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And you don't seem to know how to create consistent looking pages that are easy to read. 118.93.85.100 (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you seem to be having a bad day, but please try to be more civil. It's a little more than ironic that this is happening over an article about a Mormonism. There's really no need for the vitriol you've used in your Edit Summaries. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
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.


 * Jorge Arroyo
 * added a link pointing to San José


 * Lovability (company)
 * added a link pointing to Union Square


 * PK (film)
 * added a link pointing to Intoxicated

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Tanya Tate
I'm fairly indifferent in the choice between the Green Lantern pic and the other though I think the GL pic has better lighting and fewer harsh shadows. That was my reasoning behind keeping the GL pic that the IP added. Dismas |(talk) 03:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. I'm good with either. The one I reverted to makes her look a bit more like a "regular person", but I like the Cosplay one too. I defer to your judgement... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to move Kris Jenner to Kris Houghton
Can you moved this page by seeing this recent request, the reason is this women divorced Broce in March 2015, please, Move Kris Jenner..... 186.159.113.234 (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , no. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Advertising reviews: any benefits?
I'm new to the pending-changes editing gig, and I've got a quick question for you based on a situation that just happened. I was reviewing a change to the Steve Carell article, and I clicked the button that says "advertise" to let other reviewers know that I was working on it. As it happened, I thought the change was a good one other than the inexcusable lack of references, so I dug up a reference and submitted an edit. I had to make the change twice though, because you had reverted the page in the meantime. This leads me to wonder what the point of advertising is: would there have been any visible notice to you and our fellow reviewers that I was working on it? I'm not sure I'm understanding the purpose of the advertising feature, and you seem like you might have enough experience to know. Thanks for any advice that you may have! —jameslucas (" " / +) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, welcome to the Pending Change Reviewers. We are a seemingly small, but dedicated bunch. Until you explained the situation, I wasn't sure that's what that highlighted text meant. So thank you for clarifying something I had wondered about myself. As for the edit, my apologies for interrupting your process, I did not know at the time that is what I did. With regard to the Carell article, its been coming up on the Pending Changes list on and off for several months. I'm not sure what triggers it, but it seems to get a fair amount of IP User attention. And, like you said, without acceptable sourcing.


 * Back to your question. I leave the setting turned off as I was unclear on its function and I had not seen a good, clear explanation in the Reviewer guidelines. Not that I'm against visibility or transparency, but sometimes it's better to work diligently with a little less scrutiny thrust upon you. A conscientious Editor can tend to get more done and in a consistent manner. It's good to know that there's another in our ranks... :) Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! At the very least, it's good to know I'm not the only one who finds the feature less than fully documented! —jameslucas (" " / +) 00:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if it was more clearly explained, but if it doesn't prevent an instance like what happened with us, its seems unnecessary. That said, want to compare notes? I only have a few comments or phrases that make up the majority of my Edit Summary comments that seem to cover about 98% of my edits. Others seem to appreciate them because I've seem them replicated.


 * In roughly this order of frequency, I use the following...


 * unsourced
 * unexplained removal of content
 * format error - anything that screws up how the page displays including tables
 * rvt vandalism (short for revert)
 * not in source - there's a source there, but it doesn't support the content addition


 * Then on specific pages I use the following if the above are not appropriate...


 * needs better sourcing - usually the requests for articles list pages
 * statistics change without source update - usually on articles for sports people
 * non-notable per WP:DOY - for day of the year pages


 * By the way, with regard to changing text and replacing it with something else without an Edit Summary, I consider this 2 separate actions. First, the removal of content, and then second, the addition of unsourced content. Since both are against policy, I label it as "unexplained removal of content" and leave it at that. I find that the simplest explanation tends to result in the least complaints, but it still happens.


 * One more thing, a personal guideline that I use when I see clear vandalism is the Rollback (VANDAL) link if you have WP:ROLLBACK rights. If its a registered User, I click this versus using "rvt vandalism" and will then tag their Talk page with the appropriate Talk page template(s). If its an IP User, I will lean towards the "rvt vandal" Edit summary since blocking them accomplishes less and is usually temporary. By the way, if they are a WP:NEWBIE, always make sure to leave the template first. That's a more recent adoption of mine, but its a good idea nonetheless.


 * The more you edit, the more likely you'll get challenged on something you reverted or accepted. I explain them all the same way. I start by saying how I came to the article and link to the Special:PendingChanges list. And as clearly as I can explain my rationale for the revert or accept, most of the time its a revert. I recently got into an unexpected fracas over what I thought was a simple edit where I had wandered into an Edit war. I accepted what I thought was the NPOV edit and then made a cleanup edit afterwards, but that turned out to be a complete misread of the situation.


 * I think I'm approaching about 4,000 Pending Change edits or so and I've only been actively challenged maybe a dozen or so times, so I'm guessing that's a good track record for a Reviewer. Considering its not Bot driven and they are all "live edits", I'd say that its a respectable statistic.


 * What's your experience been like so far? How long have you been at it? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * One week in, I find that I like reviewing, but it sure has been eye-opening. My previous day-to-day use of Wikipedia rarely took me to pages of the sort I'm looking at now, and the amount of unfocused enthusiasm blows me away. I'm more used to picking away at articles like Fernet-Branca, where an exciting week is one with two edits and the discourse is unlikely to become heated. I'm definitely happy to avoid contention, if only because I pour way too many hours into drafting perfect little essays arguing my points. I've never desired rollback rights, figuring that brings more frequent interaction with the IP masses. Reviewing apparently invites enough attention as it is—I got my first troll edit on my talk page this week, (although Ponyo reverted the edits and banned the troll before I could finish typing my charitable response)! Yes, it's been a good and interesting week.
 * For now I'm ignoring pending changes on Requests for Articles (because I haven't taught myself about that area yet) and many of the sports statistics edits, but I like your standard phrases for the other types of reverts. I'm definitely adopting 'unexplained removal of content'!
 * Cheers—jameslucas (" " / +) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, the Guideline page for Rollbacker rights scared me a bit when I first read it. It was kind of like it was saying, "We're handing you a tool, BUT don't use it unless you're totally sure its the right use of it... or else!" That said, its not a function I turn to often unless vandalism is involved.


 * Otherwise it sounds like your experience is a good one and you're off to the right kind of start. Being conservative and wading slowly into the Pending Changes pool is never a bad idea. There's always a few others like me or Winkelvi to make the harder calls. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Scalhotrod:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 22 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 05:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of RISE Award for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RISE Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/RISE Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you at AN/EW
At Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. It looks like he may be changing his behavior though. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it a very bad idea to edit-war when your name has been brought up in an open ANEW discussion. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI
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) 23:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked to be excused because I was not involved in either previously mentioned ArbCom case. We're the other Editors listed by the Accused made named parties in this case? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Scalhotrod, you are not currently listed as a party to the case. You received this notification because you recently offered a statement in the Lightbreather arbitration case. Please let me know if you have further questions. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so LB's request was not granted and I have not been dragged into this case as a formal party to the proceeding. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may still submit evidence, if you choose. Any editor can do that without becoming a party (although there is always the chance that the scope be widened later, I think it unlikely you'd be a named party).  It is pretty certain that LB will be submitting evidence against you, whether or not you participate, so you might want to keep the pages watchlisted. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, that LB will be submitting what they consider evidence of all manner of supposedly nefarious things, we can all be assured. I knew this was going to be messy from the start, but when I saw in the Acceptance votes from the Arbitrators several comments that seemed to convey "it was bound to happen, so let just get this over with", it became clear to me. There won't be any "fast pull of the bandaid" in this case. I will do what I can to be supportive, but I'm not sure how much I'll be offering up at ArbCom. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather's case: Clerk request
Hi : The best place for the observations you have posted on the talk page (which is essentially evidence) is the case's /Evidence page. Either you can move it there yourself or I can ask one of the clerks to move it for you. Please let me know which you want to do. Roger Davies talk 06:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , so if I understand your reply correctly, my request with the explanation I have provided is not being viewed as a procedural or administrative action like the first instance, but additional evidence? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Scalhotrod:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 23 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

unnecessary revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&oldid=661718085&diff=prev Just because it's unsourced doesn't mean it can't be added until references are found. I debated reverting myself and felt it's not incorrect to leave it in-place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message, but its because its unsourced is why it can't be added. I've patrolled the Special:PendingChanges long enough to know that a great many Users try to sneak in edits to their favorite teams. Many just try to change a number or two and/or add things "they know to be true", but don't have a source for. Its happens on a daily basis to so many articles about sports, its mind numbing. For this reason all statistical changes need to be sourced. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements
Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

recycling geocentric
Dear Scalhotrod,

The edit I made to the recycling page was in good faith. You deleted my edit because you said it was geocentric -- but I was actually trying to make the page more global. Currently it is primarily showing an American view of recycling codes. I included a reference to the Chinese system which is far more granular and to the work in the 3d printing community indicating a voluntary coding method that is already being adopted by those that print products themselves all over the world. If you would - I would benefit from your reasoning for not including it -- I didnt have a chance to include a reference I wanted to put in - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recycling#semi_producted_edit_request_5-16.

Thanks --Filicias (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Special:PendingChanges feature sometimes bundles several edits together, if this is what happened with your edit, my apologies. When I reviewed it, the edit seemed mostly about the US in an article that is supposed to be about the entire world. So if your edits were to address countries other than the US, I applaud your efforts and encourage you to make the edit again with proper sourcing. Please let me know if you would like input or assistance. I also see that articles exist for Recycling in the United States and other countries. You may want to check those as well to see if they can benefit from your edits. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct
As per the IP edit, I say it was correct at this page. Can check List_of_cities_in_Andhra_Pradesh_by_population, List of cities in Andhra Pradesh by area.--Vin09 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , then it just needs to say that, "largest city by population...", "Largest city by area..." whatever and please source it. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement



 * Hello Scalhotrod:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 24 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

COI section / word count
I don't think you need to justify your NRA membership here. If you're an NRA member, fine. You don't have a conflict of interest. I have donated to. I don't have a conflict of interest if I edit their page. I have also donated money to and to. I don't have a COI if I edit pages about politicians from those parties either. LB is just throwing mud around and hoping it sticks. (P.S. if you hadn't added this evidence I was going to. Really a shame, because before that it felt like maybe she had turned a corner.) Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to add it, if nothing else it lends credence to the idea that someone else besides me is offended by it. I find it immensely unfortunate that an active ArbCom and LBs own fear of being severely sanctioned is what it takes to get a reasoned response and civil tone out of LB. By the way, I was granted an extension, so I'm well within it now. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

TAFI week 22, 2015 update
Please note that Personality is also an article for improvement for week 22, 2015. Thank you. Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 01:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Scalhotrod:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 25 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 06:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan's image
There has been a conflict over the use of the infobox image in the Jamie Dornan page, I'm hoping that a vote to choose a preferred image would settle the dispute. I am therefore writing to those who have edited Jamie Dornan page to voice their opinion in the Jamie Dornan Talk page so we can reach a consensus. I would welcome your opinion. Hzh (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Brian Leiter page
Hi, I am seeking your help for a philosophy page. You edited it on May 16, 2015, but since then a new user, Epefleeche, engaged in substantial rewrite that was clearly not NPOV. For example, there was a controversy section in the original article, but he doubled its length and moved it in to the introduction and added editorial comments not supported by reliable sources. He also removed discussion of the subject's work and positive references, such as his recognition in the National Law Journal. Please take a look. I only edit entries about philosophers and have no experience dealing with situations like this. Thank you. (User:Philosophy_Junkie (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User page deletion request
Any particular reason you would like your user page deleted? I like to double check before I delete full user pages, even if it is requested. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , Getting ready to retire and I'd like it deleted. I've been sloppy with my identity and there's been some Outing attempts, hence the protection if you didn't see it which should probably stay in place. Thanks! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sad to see you go. If you choose to return under another name, (or under this name), drop me a line and I will restore what you need.  If you would like to send me a committed identity via email so that you prove yourself in the future, feel free to do that as well.  Best of luck!  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 17:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the offer, but I think its best to distance myself from this account as much as possible. I'd be fine with the information and history being deleted indefinitely. I think that's called "salting" or something like that. I'm leaving the Talk page up for the archive in case other User want to refer to it in the future. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be blanked if you like, that way history is preserved but is not readily available unless you want to look for it. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll probably just manually archive it just before I retire. Thanks again! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I echo Chris's sentiments: sorry to see you go! I have to say thanks for welcoming me into the reviewing community; it was a great way to start. —jameslucas (" " / +) 18:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello Scalhotrod:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 26 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 05:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)