User talk:Scott MacDonald/Archive

King Punisher
I would like to see the deleted article be moved into WP:Article Incubator, despite creation by a blocked sock. It does show academic notability and the book sources make up for it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyTheKidByte (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think putting unreferenced negative BLPs in "incubators" is really allowed. If someone want to immediately directly source all the content, that might be allow undeletion. But not to hang about in an incubator, sorry.--Scott Mac 20:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this recreation. King Punisher.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It now appears to be referenced. so BLP compliant. Notability is a matter for afd if anyone want to go there.--Scott Mac 08:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll take it off my watchlist and leave it to the socks. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still on my watchlist.--Scott Mac 10:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of Criticism of the United Nations?
I see you acted as the referee on the deletion of Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations, and decided that content forks should not survive. I agree. Please have a look at Criticism of the United Nations. Its creator and main editor, User:AzureFury stubbornly denies it is a fork and resists all attempts to re-insert the contents where it came from, the United Nations article. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I hate such articles as simply an indiscriminate list of one-sided attacks. But, it's perhaps not as inherently POV as the anti-Semitism one. You could test it at afd, but carefully word your nomination.--Scott Mac 10:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Russell T Davies
Ahoy there! In case you haven't noticed, Russell T Davies is at FAC. There's a dispute, however, about a screenshot of him presenting Play School here. I understand the objections to the image, although I disagree on whether it fails the NFCC, and would like an opinion from another editor who is historically opposed to non-free media overuse, just to be sure. :) Sceptre (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind; Fasach Nua decided to throw his toys out of the pram. I'm not willing to let an FAC I've worked on for months to fail because an editor isn't getting his own way. Sceptre (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like it might meet the FAR, but I'm no expert.--Scott Mac 20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought it would meet the NFCC; otherwise, I wouldn't have uploaded the image in the first place (and hell, I'm one of the strictest editors re: fair use when it comes to the Doctor Who project). But, as I said, it doesn't matter any more. Sceptre (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations
Hi, Scott, I'd appreciate it if you could take a second look at your deletion of this article. Your deletion statement did not appear in any way to be a review of the discussion or an assessment of its outcome, but a statement of your own concern regarding the article. More disturbingly, you did not address the arguments of Ryan Paddy, who expressed essentially the same concern as you, but advocated keeping the article. That WP:NPOV is non-negotiable does not make the debate "moot", since the question of whether this article violates WP:NPOV was itself one of the main things debated.

Regarding your rhetorical question and offer to merge to something "usable", I do in fact think that an article Allegations of philosemitism in the United Nations would be fine in terms of WP:NPOV, but - based on my research at least - one would be hard pressed to find notable sources expressing such allegations, so it would probably fail the notability test (assuming any material at all could be found). I could consider merging this article into a new article The United Nations and Jews.

A final procedural note. I didn't take part in the discussion because I was off wiki for a while and I wasn't informed of the nomination, though I created the article and contributed almost all of its stable content. It seems from the discussion that the nominator added material slightly before the nomination and then advocated deletion based on objections to the very material he added. Of course I can't be sure this is the case because I can't see the article history, but the fact that Freakshownerd objected to the AfD on procedural grounds should have warranted extra caution in closing the debate. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I used extreme caution in closing the debate, since (given the nature of the subject and the strong POVs it engenders) I predicted that however it was closed I would get complaints. I spent some time considering the article, the debate, and the implications of our NPOV. I adhere to my decisions. Perhaps, I could have explained it better (I'll need to think about that), but I am not minded to change it.--Scott Mac 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, referring to the community discussion would probably have created more confidence that your close was a faithful reflection of its outcome. Anyway, see below. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help
Hello, few hours ago you closed the deletion request for Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv as no consensus. As soon as you did, user:Maashatra11 tagged the article for merge. The deletion request was just closed, the merge was discussed. IMO it is harassment to tag the article once again. Yesterday the user tagged another of my articles he nominated to be deleted for split ;. He even split the article himself without waiting for anybody to comment. He reverted other editors 3 times, and stopped only when the article was protected. Could you please warn the user and remove the tags? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said in the close, a merger seems to be the consensus here. The only question is whether to merge this article into the other, or the other into this. Given that consensus, the tagging seems quite reasonable. You may disagree, but it is certainly not harassment.--Scott Mac 15:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was nominated for the deletion just few hours before it was supposed to be featured at the main page as DYK. I asked the user to wait with the deletion request until DYK was over. He refused. Now, when the deletion request is closed, it could have gone to DYK, but with those tags it will not. It is more than unfair. This is an article that talks about peace concerning one very violent region. The more people will read the article the better. It is simply wrong to deny DYK for this kind of article. Do you believe it is possible to remove the tags until after its appearance on DYK? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Better for what? I've no idea about DYK, but I suspect there's plenty of articles to fill it. There's a consensus that this article substantially duplicates another and there should be a merger. Tagging thus looks reasonable, and I can see no grounds for me to censure the person doing it. Best to discuss it with them.--Scott Mac 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

error in your user boxes
One says that you are reachable by e-mail but it is not true. I fixed it for you. Apologies if the userbox is a joke and you have it on purpose. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A slightly old AfD
Hiya. Could you take a glance at Articles for deletion/Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations, which you closed on July 27? Turns out the nominator was one of many socks of a banned user (banned for, among other things, antisemitic personal attacks); perhaps that information would have affected your decision. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was (I think) discussed at the deletion review. I try not to personalise these things, so I don't think it would have made any difference.--Scott Mac 08:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK! cool. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Threat
I have received a clear threat from a one time editor on my talk page and can be seen over here. What are my options? and what will Wikipedia do against such vandals? --  MARWAT   00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The user in question has been blocked, and will remain so as long as he is making legal threats. Other than that, there's no much we can do. "Wikipedia" is just volunteers like you and me, we do what we can.--Scott Mac 00:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maxine Waters
With your recent edits on the Maxine Waters page, it would be helpful if rather than simply cutting sections or chunks of text because of reference problems you took a moment to look for a better reference. I went back, for instance, and added the petroleum section after searching through Congressional Record. It only takes a few moments usually, and seems unfair, really, to force all of that work over to others. Thanks much. ThtrWrtr (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone is willing to do that work, fine. However, in the meantime it is unacceptable to have unreferenced or poorly referenced negative material in the article. So I remove it until someone is willing to do the work.--Scott Mac 11:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. And my point was simply that it's helpful if all of us put in the work to be that "someone."  You could my talk page for more on this.  Cheers.  ThtrWrtr (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing stuff that breaches BLP and thus may be damaging is, for me, more important than the time-consuming work of placing information into articles in areas that I neither know, nor care about. This is a volunteer project, and that's simply not something I volunteer to do. If you want to work in that area, all power to you.--Scott Mac 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * True. Researching, writing, and sourcing the entries that WP exists to provide takes more time that reverting and cutting the work of others.  User:Patchyreynolds  —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Time isn't really the issue. There's always plenty to do later. But there is an urgency to ensuring bad material about living people is removed that isn't there about making sure more material goes in. There must always be more to go in, whilst we must aim at removing all unreferenced negative material immediately.--Scott Mac 23:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WR barnstar
I can't tell you on that site, so I will say here that this was a very good post. ArbCom apparently thought Everyking was obsessed with Sandifer. I cannot imagine why he's trying to prove them right. Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he's just obsessive. Sandifer is just the details.--Scott Mac 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I suppose this is a personal attack.--Scott Mac 23:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Feh. Perspective is good. There are wrongful convictions where people are imprisoned for years. Implicitly comparing such injustice to being mildly encumbered on a website because some mods don't like you&mdash;it's obscene, really. Cool Hand Luke 03:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've filed with arbcom to have his restrictions reinstated.--Scott Mac 10:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request Pending
Dear Scott MacDonald, I appologise for leaving you a note without a user name, as I have no other option. I would like to divert your attention towards "unblock" request posted at my Talk Page at User_talk:TurnWorst four days back. As I have withdrawn my legal petition, please unblock me. Thanks --221.120.250.73 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Found 2 Reference for John Capra
The New York Sun


 * Making Jack Falcone: An Undercover FBI Agent Takes Down a Mafia Family By Joaquin Garcia, Michael Levin (pg. 363)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyBR (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain this edit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=381365597. -- Avi (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I was accused of being "anti-Schlessinger". Actually, I picked up for a media source that she was unhappy with her article and I got involved to clean it up (I'd never previously heard of her). I posted the media complaint as an alert on the BLP noticeboard too. In short, if anything, I was editing in her favour. (Someone else, strangely, accused me of being Jewish for that)--Scott Mac 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The penis remark probably could've been left out. I believe that may be what Avi is asking about. – xeno talk 21:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK. Not so good. I apologise if that caused any inadvertent offence. However, in mitigation I was irked by a random attack from an IP.--Scott Mac 21:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My addition, a few seconds later, perhaps shows the non-intention to offend . But again, inept rhetoric on my part. Sorry.--Scott Mac 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – xeno talk 21:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be shutting the door after the horse, but I've stricken the remarks also.--Scott Mac 22:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott, you may also want to apologize directly to David Appletree. The remark was quoted to me, and I rolled my eyes and went to see who said it, and I was disappointed to see it was you. Out of character. I'm glad you apologized already, and I don't ask that you beat yourself up for weeks over it, but it would be good to directly apologize to David as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already done so.--Scott Mac 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For everyone reading this who may not have seen the whole story: There were two "anti-semitic" remarks by Scott Mac: A very mild one which Scott Mac did make when a banned user accused him of a Jewish bias. That's the one discussed in this section. Scott Mac toned it down, struck it out and apologised for it in several places. And a really crass fake one, posted by DavidAppleby with Scott Mac's faked signature. DavidAppleby posted a screenshot of that to ImageShack and linked to it from the JIDF twitter stream. It is extremely important to keep the two apart. Hans Adler 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My own remark (see the diff above) was thoughtless and inexcusable, but I'd protest not anti-Semitic. I'm not defending it, but I do think I wish to protest that point strongly.--Scott Mac 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support that. It seemed like a "crude" attempt at humor, but what do I know :). --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sorry for not making that clear: I totally agree your actual remark wasn't anti-semitic per se in its original context, although it's also not surprising that it was read that way. (I once saw an editor attack another as an anti-semite for using the word "chutzpah" while not being Jewish. This has made it harder to surprise me.) Hans Adler 14:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I too cannot see Scott's actual remark as anti-semitic, & it should not have been taken that way.     DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Outrageous. After 3 hectic days, the lesson is 'agent provocateurs' should be given the widest leeway, until the obvious becomes apparent to the wikiwardens, while wit, and its exponents, are regarded dourly and told their 'behaviour' has no place on wikipedia. In defence of what? dignity? Scott Mac's funny riposte would be envied, in context, by the Philip Roths of the writerly world. He has nothing to apologize for, and certainly not to . . And once again Mr Wales has lost it. Keep this up, and wikipedia will end up selecting for prudish, politically correct, ethnically self-fixated, instrumentally ultra-sensitive puritanical etiquette-bashers more keen to monitor others, than encourage a vital online community. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what's been happening here, and what the connection to retirement or Jimbo is, but Scott made a joke, that's all. Scott get your ass back in here pronto. You don't get away that easily! :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Scott hasn't done anything but show some wit and cleverness that is beyond the ability of some to comprehend. This isn't Scott's problem (or it shouldn't be, anyway); responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of those that failed to understand that not being politically correct is alright. Scott probably should have anticipated how people would react (the same as they do whenever I get a bit sarcastic or snarky), but anyone attempting to harass him for a legitimate linguistic device will be held responsible. Scott is one of our best administrators, and shouldn't be pressured into leaving because of a few closed-minded individuals. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, eh?
I share your concern. Apparently, it's being handled. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We need you back
I hope this is only temporary. You play a valuable role here, particularly in BLP issues. Don't let the trolls beat you, we all lose. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. At the same time, though, I would like to add: enjoy a nice holiday if you want one.  You deserve it. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We all get to feeling overwhelmed. Hope you feel better after a rest and comeback. Take care. Dloh  cierekim  19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Me four. Hans Adler 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Whilst we have often disagreed on many issues your hard graft and insightful input is much appreciated. Pedro : Chat  21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks, I not going to insult you by pretending not to be lurking. But when things like this happen, one does tend to stop and ask "is this the best use of my time?" and the answer is generally in the negative. Right now, I need to be doing other things. Beyond that, who can say. I may be back next week, or (less likely) not at all. In general, I think Wikipedia is far far to tolerant of people who are obviously here to cause trouble and do everything but fight for neutrality, and far to intolerant of minor mistakes. The result is drama. I mean why does it take several discussions and screeds on ANI to say "troll, door, goodbye"? I started my wiki-life fighting User:-Ril- (for those who don't remember he was a POV-pusher and persistent pest), it took months to show him the door - I though we'd got better at discerning destructive time wasting since then. Now, not so sure. People still want to defend the "rights" of obvious problem users to the nth degree. Wikipedia isn't a place where you have the right to edit to the 15th chance. It is a place to write a neutral encyclopedia. When "on the balance of probabilities" your presence isn't going to aid that aim it should be "goodnight". Instead we have repeated chances on the off-chance of reform. How many professional agenda-pushers end up being useful wikipedians? A few I guess (maybe ). How many hours are wasted, and good users driven to distraction? --Scott Mac 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! I thought the penis remark was quite witty, confirmed my initial opinion of you, which you have done your utmost to contradict. I think people would have to be a little oversensitive to be offended by that, but, in my not inconsiderable experience, quite a few Wikipedians are. Whatever, I shall quite miss (seriously) your dull, dour Presbyterian countenance two paces behind me (no that is not a calculated insult to whatever the equivalent to anti-Semitic is for Scotsmen) just leave the insults and wisecracks to me in future Scotty. Look forward to seeing you soon.   Giacomo   21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Dougweller et al. I'll go back and read a couple of your essays while you're gone, and I'll think of you every time I give my BLP speech. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or whenever you attempt to rap. The Wordsmith Communicate 22:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Facebook Effect is pretty good. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm currently recommending this article by Jeffrey Rosen to people thinking through these issues. I think back to the List of internet memes debate in 2007 and know that Scott was way ahead of the curve on these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens, Scott; leaving is only what the trolls want. Come back in a week, or a month, but we need you still.  — fetch ·  comms   01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. This would be a fairly serious loss; hopefully it won't be permanent. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On your break, can you please also read "King Rat"? I have a question about who the informer was that told about the wireless. Thanks! Uncle uncle uncle 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do I hope you both catch the nice allusion to the words in Hirohito's surrender speech on p.345.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott, have a good break; in light of all this rubbish that's happening, you probably could use one. But do come back one of these days, OK? Your edits are still valued by those of us who care for Wikipedia. I might not always agree with you (though I'm fully in accord with the sentiments about preferring not to have knife on penis), but your work is very worthwhile. Return to us sooner rather than later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Books
There are, of course, ways to read books and contribute to Wikipedia at the same time. &#9786; One can even avoid modern U.S. political shenanighans and sillinesses by writing biographies of unquestionably very dead people. If you want yet another pile-on suggestion of something to read, note that Ellis(2007) could probably provide a fairly decent stub, covering at least the 19th century, for a general article on law enforcement in Nebraska (background background). Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lincoln County Sheriff's Office (Nebraska)
 * Georgia Baptist Convention

You did good!
Hi Scott, I would like to tell you that I am very impressed by your bravery and your fairness. People say sometimes something that could be offending to others, this could happen with anybody, but only brave ones could publicly admit it, and apologize for their mistakes. I believe you are a good person, and a great administrator! I hope that, if user:DavidAppletree had an access to his talk page, he would have accepted your apology, and would have apologized to you for forgery on imageshack. In a meantime I'd like you to accept my apology for what David did to you because although I do not know David, and did not even see the image he uploaded to imageshack, but as a Jew I feel myself at least partly responsible for what my people do. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Very annoying
I do sympathise, it can very irritating (I known from experience) when idiots fiddle with one pages and one is supposed to have left in high dudgeon. I look at this way, if we all left, the place would fall to pieces inside 6 weeks - I only stay to prevent that happening.  Giacomo  18:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have socked. But bloody typical, I wait three years to get one of my featured articles on the mainpage, and they finally select one when I'm sulking in silence: the bastards.--Scott Mac 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Illegitimi non carborundum. Pedro : Chat  19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubly annoying for you because has you read some of my wise advice, you would know that by the morning after, very little will have changed. I'm invariably right which must be trebly annoying for you. I suppose, I should say welcome home!  Giacomo   20:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki
As a result of a request for comment, Today's featured article (Ayumi Hamasaki) may be protected as any other article would be, though admins should exercise common sense when responding to such requests. As well as BLP policy. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any consensus on that page, actually. But whatever.--Scott Mac 23:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hi Scott, I see you have other things on your mind right now, but would you be so kind as to restore the article Allegations of antisemitism in the United Nations, which you deleted a while ago, to my sandbox? Many thanks, and don't let Wikipedia get you down. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)