User talk:Scarpy/Archive 7

WikiProject Colorado
The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. Several users have asked us to reactivate WikiProject Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. Many articles about Colorado need to be updated and many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs some new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you would like to remain an active member of WikiProject Colorado, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. If you cannot help right now, you can go to inactive status and then reactivate your status later. Thanks for any help you can provide. Yours aye, Buaidh  17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Celebration
Don't forget the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary event in Boulder tomorrow. Yours aye, Buaidh  22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sexual compulsives anonymous
Hi Scarpy. I think that it is a pity that you've abandoned the Sexual Compulsives Anonymous page and I thing that that article will almost certainly suffer without your input. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. But, I spent about eight hours on the talk page discussion and related research yesterday, and made no progress. I don't have the time to continue to do that to try and remove the pejorative language in the first sentence. If you see no issue with describing SCA and SAA like people talk about OJ Simpson, then I don't know what to do to convince you otherwise. But, yeah, it does make me sad that the articles now malign well-intentioned non-profit mutual-aid organizations for no good reason. I'll get over it. C'est la vie. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalizing userpages is not how to handle disagreements. Report made at AN/I
Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, — James Cantor (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Intimate relationship skills peer-review
Hi Scarpy, The Intimate relationship skills page has been redrafted, following feedback, would you have time to make any comments?

(as you are listed here: [Peer_review/volunteer])

I'm watching this page, as in your info above.

Many Thanks,

Geoffjw1978 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Geoff, will have a look. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intimate relationship skills (2nd submission) this one, right? -- Scarpy (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the one. Thanks very much for taking the time to read this article.
 * Geoffjw1978 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Addictive personality article
Hey Scarpy, could you please check out this Addictive personality article? I think it needs a bit of work right now. Thanks, jrun (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Colorado Wiknic
All Wikipedians are cordially invited to the Colorado celebration of the 2011 Great American Wiknic on June 25. We will meet Saturday afternoon from 3:00 to 5:00 at the D Note, 7519 Grandview Avenue in Arvada. Please e-mail Jacques Delaguerre at Special:EmailUser/Jaxdelaguerre if you plan to attend. Be there or be square! – Buaidh  03:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Secular Organizations for Sobriety. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Secular Organizations for Sobriety. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Secular Organizations for Sobriety. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your behavior is unacceptable. Stop it. Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent behavior on the Secular Organizations for Sobriety page. The thread is User Scarpy reverting against policy, refusing to explain reasons for reverts. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Secular Organizations for Sobriety. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Secular Organizations for Sobriety. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Secular Organizations for Sobriety, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Colorado
It was recently suggested that WikiProject Colorado, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Niteflirt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Niteflirt 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/Niteflirt 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Frank &#124;  talk  21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi Scarpy,

I got your name from the list of peer review volunteers. I am hoping you wouldn't mind having a look at the Sahaja Yoga article which I've been involved with for some time. I practice the technique and my interest in the article was sparked by a desire to rescue it from a sustained critical attack. However I have not removed any reliable sources, just tried to keep it neutral and encyclopedic. Recently I have obtained the following feedback via the form at the bottom of the article:


 * Few reputable sources


 * Moderate bias


 * Contains key info but with gaps


 * Difficult to understand

The reputable sources issue is not easy to correct since there literally has not been much written about this movement.

The bias score may be skewed since readers may include both devotees and critics, both of whom may find the article is biased away from both their respective views. I would appreciate someone who is neutral such as yourself to give me an indication of how you perceive the neutrality.

Please let me know about any gaps in the information provided from your independent viewpoint.

Mostly I would like some feedback and/or help with the way it is written to enhance the comprehension for the reader.

Please let me know if this takes your interest. Freelion (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Something that you don't want to hear, but is probably worth saying, editing Wikipedia might be the most unrewarding and brutal experience of my life -- and I don't say that lightly after about 11,000 edits. Yoga is actually a lot more fun and a much better way to spend your time. I've mostly given up on Wikipedia and would suggest others do the same until the editor community as a whole is more congenial. Good talk on this here (relevant par around 9 minutes in).


 * That being said, if I get some time here soon, I'll take a look at the article. And, if I'm not blocked in the next week. -- Scarpy (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Scarpy, I would have thought by now you would be used to the rules at Wikipedia; believe me there are more brutal places to be, like blogs where there are no rules! I understand what you mean though, sometimes it can be a battle and I've certainly experienced edit wars in the past with this article. However, on Sahaja Yoga I've had the article pretty much to myself (with some responsible admins) over the last couple of years but I need some help to get it to the next level. If you get around to having a look, I'd really appreciate any feedback I can get. Cheers, Freelion (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Review request for cognitive psychology
Hi Scarpy,

I saw your name on the wiki help page, I was wondering if you would like to review my page! Much is appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemonium_architecture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmierock (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer review request for industrial psychology
Hello Scarpy,

I am currently working on the Job analysis page for an Industrial Psychology course at Ball State University. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia, and am hoping that you could review my page! It would be greatly appreciated.

Mnshumate (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Troll
Before you call me a troll, you really ought to take a bit, and read over the past two months of AfD's, mediation, talk page discussion at WP:MMANOT. You appear to be a really good editor from the looks of things, and if you're an MMA fan new to the discussion, I can understand your position. The articles I nominated not only fail WP:FUTURE, they don't demonstrate notability, and I can't even get editors to add the prose and sources if I find it myself.

All UFC fights do not need their own page, and the laziness With which they are sourced is mind boggling.

Even if you think I'm nuts on position, at least get to know the situation before assuming bad faith.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if I assume everything you're saying is true, if your solution is to mark all the MMA-related articles for deletion en masse, then I feel the ad hominem is not only justified but if anything is was an understatement. If it was one article, that would be fine, if it's several, you should be taking another approach. What you're doing ignores the root cause, and is in no way going to foster collaboration with other people interested in those articles. It looked like you were bitter and had an ax to grind, and now you've told me you're bitter and have an ax to grind. Take a wiki break, and come back and look at this fresh again in a few months. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

See the problem is, you are assuming things without getting to know the whole situation. You obviously have read none of the backstory to this. You should read the past AfD's on individual events I wasn't the nominator of, as well as the discussions at WP:MMANOT where we have been trying and trying to get some new guidelines for notability to RfC. The only axe I have to grind is tings that are bad for WP. My solution is not to mark all MMA events for deletion en masse, my selections were deliberate. All but one as of today have yet to even occur,they still fail WP:future, but even throwing that out, they fails WP:Sportsevent and WP:mmaevent. I'm not saying they shouldn't have any coverage, but run of the mill events are covered just fine by the Omnibus. Notable events deserve their own articles, just as anything else on WP. For example UFC 146, which I voted to delete, until another editor and I found sources that demonstrate notability and lasting effect as well as non-routine coverage. This is of course due to the Overeem drug issue.I also had all these up for AfD and withdrew my nomination and went and asked those that had voted to do the same, so that it wouldn't impede progress at WP:MMANOT. Immediately following that, all we ended up with was pointy ANI's,Obstruction to coming up with something for RfC,personal attacks, harrassment and a few good editors and an admin giving up because of the toxicity the mma fans that are not part of the wikipedia community and have been canvassed here bring to the table. I'm not referring to talk page canvassing,this is from most of the major MMA website forums,Twitter,etc.

You can call it bitter if you want, but until you have read through the pages and pages of history behind this, I'd stop assuming. I'm open to collaborating with anyone willing to work, as opposed to railing against wikipedia's policies and assuming the bad faith of anyone who brings UFC events to AfD. You appear to be a quality editor,if you are an mma fan as well, and believe in the WP community and processes, I'd suggest joining the MMA Project and helping to straighten things out. No one is interested in getting UFC/MMA off wikipedia,we just want the information included to be encyclopedic, not a fansite.Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's speak English rather than the sectarian Wikipedia legalese that kool-aid drinking editors are so fond of (e.g. "assuming bad faith" and "fails WP:whatever").


 * You're right, I've read none of the backstory, and I probably won't and I have no idea what you mean by "Omnibus" in the context that you used it. I do have a better idea of what you're going through, and I get how much it sucks to be the target of attacks for doing nothing but well-intentioned editing (various people have threatened to sue me before over text I added to articles completely backed up and perfectly cited by peer-reviewed journals) and I've been in very similar situations with AfDs before. It sucks. It really really really sucks to put a ton of time and research in to something and have someone with an obvious COI come and not just remove it but threaten you.


 * But the issue here is the same as with most problems like this on Wikipedia--people are being ideologues and enforcement of Wikipedia policies is entirely inconsistent and capricious. I can say when I've had major issues on Wikipedia, like the ones where someone threatened to sue me, Wikipedia administrators did nothing except talk to me like I wasn't worth their time because I was doing something wrong if I was having difficulty getting along with someone threatening to sue me. There's been plenty of times where an editor was way out of line and administrators would get involved and tell the editor to stop doing whatever it was they were doing, but the editor would just keep doing it and they would do nothing.


 * Whether you want to believe it or not, something about these MMA-related articles really stuck in your craw. Wikipedia is in a constant state of being less than perfect, and I will completely grant you that if you're attempting to follow the letter of the notability guidelines, I'm sure you would find a lot of issues with several MMA-related articles. But of all the groupings of less than perfect things to have energy about fixing on Wikipedia, there's some reason why you're as focused as you are on these ones. I don't know what it is, but there's a reason. Whatever that reason is, I can guarantee you the energy you're putting in to deal with this in this way is not worth whatever you think the the payoff will be.


 * I'd say try to think of another way of accomplishing what you're interested in, but look in to doing it over a longer period of time during which you can get more consensus and refine your goals. Or keep doing what you're doing and stop complaining that it's as unpleasant as it is for you. I don't care. I think the way you're going about it is all wrong, and I'd still vote the same way on the articles that were nominated for deletion.


 * Believe me, I feel for you, I do. The situation you're in sucks, but what sucks more is that for all the interest in Wikipedia, there's a never-ending policy creep and the "process" for resolving disputes tends to burn out good editors because any "administration" that occurs in situations like this is, like I said, entirely inconsistent and capricious. But, you know, good times. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)