User talk:Scottperry/Archive-2016-09-11

'''Archive 5 July 2014 - September 2016'''

-

Proposed deletion of List of works based on A Course in Miracles


The article List of works based on A Course in Miracles has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * fails WP:N no indication the subject has been covered by any source

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see reply here. Scott P. (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Academi
FYI, you asked that I reopen merge discussion at Talk:Academi, but I just wanted to let you know that I didn't close it. I may have made what was at the time the last comment, but I don't know what happened after that or who did it. Good luck. ENeville (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

edit war warning
Your recent editing history at A Course in Miracles‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your closure of a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales
Very very bitey to close on basis that the proposer is new. Also please don't make assumptions about what we might decide given the chance. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There were four "oppose" votes and no "support" votes. Others besides myself had requested for closure.  When I looked closely at Walter's edits, I could see that the supposed "newbie" Walter had mastered Wiki-write coding better than many who have edited Wikipedia for years.  It seems to me that pranksters like Walter need as much encouragement to abandon their pranks and instead do serious editing as we can give them. Scott P. (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't give the rest of us a chance to support. To extrapolate from 4 !votes to making sweeping assertions about what "we" would decide is a little over-confident. To assume someone is a prankster just because they are more competent than you is a bit rich. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You can still comment in the discussion area on Jimbo's talk page about newbies not making such silly suggestions. 'Walter' was spoofing us all with the ludicrous proposal.  Jimbo does not hold his job 'at our pleasure', but we edit 'at his pleasure'.  Some editors seem to have no other intention than to stir up trouble, 'poke at the bee's nest', then stand back and giggle while watching the ensuing mayhem.  So you would want to give an editor who has only been editing for three hours the authority to have Jimbo 'fired', and you might like to have the right to 'fire' Jimbo yourself (I am presuming)?  By engaging in a fanciful dialogue where we 'pretend' to have the right to fire Jimbo, does not automatically transform this apparent fantasy of yours into a reality.  The discussion itself was a pointless exercise in fantasy and a waste of time and space on Jimbo's talk page.  If that were the world we lived in, where we offered newbies such authority, then we would all lose the privilege of editing Wikipedia in very short order, once Wikipedia was gutted by those who would apparently want to gut it, 'just for the fun of it', such as Walter.  Scott P. (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! You really can't cope with people who disagree with you can you? As for your ludicrous comment "you would want to give an editor who has only been editing for three hours the authority to have Jimbo 'fired', and you might like to have the right to 'fire' Jimbo yourself" - no, that's just bollocks and not at all what I or the OP were saying - I presume it's simply that you cannot understand rather than that you are deliberately misrepresenting me. My position is that the community should be able to decide whether or not Wales should continue to act as he does. We do not edit here at "his pleasure" - he does not own Wikipedia, he is not the "editor-in-chief" or anything like it, and it is damaging to Wikipedia when editors assume that he is. I'll try to remember in future that you are the sole arbiter of what discussions are allowed on Wales's talk page - and then ignore you and your bizarre behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to finally know your position. You would like to in some way have some 'authority' over Jimbo if you could.  I can understand your wish to have this, but in reality, legally, in the course of normal events, we really have no authority over him, but rather legally, he does have some authority over us.  He very rarely exercises such authority, and thus few ever experience it or even know about it.  Thus the 'feel' of a 'rough democracy' pervades Wikipedia, and rightfully so.  The current legal and social organization of Wikipedia is what has made Wikipedia what it is today.  Personally I know of very few veteran/ well-experienced editors who would have it any other way.  Scott P. (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't tug on Superman's cape
 * You don't spit into the wind
 * You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
 * And you don't mess around with Jim
 * 'nuff said.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot Wikipedia is a comic strip. Thanks for reminding me Michael. And Scott, no I don't personally want authority over anyone (anyone who does want personal authority over another, or others, is invariably unfit to hold such authority, and should be kept as far away from any kind of public power as possible), I do want Wikipedia to be a community, governing itself, and not relying childishly on a (possibly) benevolent god figure. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world, we would all be perfectly equal, there would be no need for police, and the need for a legal system would be irrelevent. Here on earth, an organizstion like Wikipedia has to have someone at its helm.  Othewise the ship would hit the rocks.  As far as I can tell, so far Wikipedia has been skippered pretty well.  As far as I can tell, Jimbo has set up a system that is essentially 90% self governing.  But when someone has to select the correct hardware, draw the line on exactly which IP's to block, or deal with copyright attorneys, someone has to take ultimate responsibility, and so far as I can tell, Jimbo has proven himself a master at this sort of stuff.  No he is not superman or God.  But yes, he has a huge responsibility on his shoulders, and in my humble opinion, he bears it well. Scott P. (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And "comic strip"? No... though I do find ridiculous ideas can only be treated with humor, and those song lines were fitting.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Hi Scott, I'm trying to understand the purpose of your edit. I undid it in the mean time. The hatnotes are for disambiguation (and navigation) not (just) a listing of redirects that point there. As the redirect you added didn't have a link, I presumed that was not understood? Regards Widefox ; talk 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct assumption, Thanks for the correction.  Scott P. (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bare footnotes
Please do not leave bare URL footnotes with your edits (within the ISIL article). They are liable to link-rot (if the website moves to a new domain), which will lead to dead links. Please use the cite templates on the Edit page to compose footnotes; this is the standard form for footnotes in this article. I would give you an instructions template, but as I see you have edited in Wikipedia for many years you will already know how to use the cite templates. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Just in case:

--P123ct1 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * See reply in next section. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS - Caliphate
I added "which?" to "early Caliphate" only because I didn't know what is meant by the "early Caliphate". I have no background in this and I thought a reader might be puzzled and wonder which one. Is it a reference to the "earliest" Caliphate or "an early Caliphate"? As I imagine readers will be curious, could you be more specific in the text? That was all! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi P-123.., I've tried to clarify all of the points you requested in the above two sections. Will review alternate views of Refs with the suggested browsers.  Thanks for the suggestions. Scott P. (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Those footnote instructions are very simple, and much clearer than the WP instructions!  Please do use them.  I find the best template to use is "cite news" (unless it is a book or journal).  Don't forget to put in the date of the article and the "publisher" (use "work" if it is a newspaper) and the author/s.  If there's more than one, the plus sign will give a new line for each.  I know this may seem like a fuss, but believe me, bare URL footnotes (i.e. just http addresses) have been the bane of this article, which is why I drew up those instructions for editors! --P123ct1 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Auto-edits?
Please explain this revert. I wasn't "auto-editing"--I was trying to give credit to the persons who took the photographs of the virus in the first place. If you respond here, please use Ping —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply follows:
 * Hi Koavf, Sorry about the incorrect assumption about an "auto-edit". Still, the reason I reverted was because I couldn't understand which photos were being referenced, and also I couldn't understand the new flow of the edited sentence.  Were you referring to the photo in the "Genome section" by chance?  If you could either make a new sentence describing exactly which photo is being referenced, and place the attribution quote in parenthesis, or else place the attribution directly under the referenced photo, I know my poor rather slow mind would be better able to understand.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Photos The photos are not present in the article: they are the original pictures taken of the Ebola virus itself. I guess that wasn't clear. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply follows:
 * There, I just added the credit as I would normally expect it to appear, but I think it would still need a reference in order for it to stay. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Better discuss at WP:NPOV!
 * Also, note that editing a high-profile policy page like Neutral point of view without seeking consensus is regarded more disruptive than other revert-warring.
 * Whatever you think of the July 2014 consensus, the version you reverted to has no consensus.
 * Your accusation that in July 2014 I didn't follow due process is unacceptable to me.
 * So please, there's only one way to win your argument, that is with a discussion on the content, as I said multiple times. Consensus can change (as I also already said multiple times) and I'm open to such discussions.
 * I'm not open to a discussion that is about damaging my reputation as a contributor to policies and guidelines. That is loss of time and will get us nowhere.
 * I'll post at the Fringe theories/Noticeboard to see whether more input is possible on the issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:BALASPS. Thank you.

Your "humble suggestion"
Regarding your humble suggestion on Jimbo Wales talk page, I suggest you look at the date stamps of the comments I made. They were all made prior to Jimbo telling me not to post there. Since I cannot correct your slander on Jimbo's page myself, please strike your humble suggestion with an appropriate apology. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I noted that Jim asked you to stop posting there at 1400, but your last two posts there were at around 1700. Scott P. (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the day before. Strike your comment and apologize. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind... I've stricken it for you. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, apparently you did not intend to post on Jimmy's page against his request, but all of your postings were dated from the 23rd. Still, as he has asked, please don't post anymore on his talk page. If you agree here, I will not "unstrike" my entry.  OK?  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How dare you try and blackmail me after making false allegations. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Scott, I have no idea why you won't do the decent thing and just admit you made a mistake. --Neil N  talk to me 05:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the dating of the comments at all, they seem to me to be dated later, nobody has yet explained to me why a comment timestamped 1700 23 October by Epi was supposedly posted before a comment timestamped 1400 23 October by Jimbo. Epi, could you please at least explain this to me? You won't promise not to post there, and you seem to have accidentally posted the last two comments, so I will delete my comment at any rate. But could you please at least try to explain the timestamps to me? Yes, I am confused. Scott P. (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)" is what I see. --Neil N  talk to me 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. I think it may have something to do with the way I have my timestamp reading preferences set, and the fact that UTC was in a different day than here, I don't know. Doubly sorry. Scott P. (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

List of National Time Laboratories
Hi, I found your page about national time laboratories and I'd like to link to that page from the page about Network Time Foundation. I'd also like to see the list of countries that have national time labs be updated and filled out, possibly with an eye towards TAI/UTC calculations and the IERS-A bulletins. Thoughts? Stenn (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Stenn,
 * Sorry I didn't ever "complete" that article on Time Laboratories. I got about half way through, and it started to become progressively more difficult to find all of the data that would have been required to complete it.  Thinking that the article was probably something that does indeed belong in Wikipedia, I decided not to delete the article, not to finish it, and simply to hope that someone else with more connections and more free-time than I, perhaps a physicist? might be able to complete it.
 * Thanks for your interest in the article,
 * Scott P. (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

see NPOV proposal

April 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 14:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott, fundamentally, if your edits are being challenged as they have been, you need to work it out on the Talk page first, before repeatedly trying to get the article to read as you'd like. You've been using the Talk page and that's great but the one thing you need to avoid doing is redoing your changes before the Talk page discussion is settled. Thanks... 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Zach, I know that editing in Wikipedia sometimes seems to get my heart going perhaps a bit faster than it should. Thank you for finally agreeing with me about this last edit.  Editing in Wikipedia sometimes feels to me like an unneccessarily "adversarial" experience.  This is nobody's particular fault, but I do believe that the entire Wikipedia "system" could be subtly improved just a little so that it could promote working together just a bit more, and I believe that it could be altered just a little bit so that it would slightly reduce its tendency to automatically lead folks into "adversarial" situations.  Personally I believe that in so doing, the quality of the articles could move from "neck to neck" against Britannica, and just a little bit better than them because we have more articles and more detailed articles, to twice as good as anything Britannica ever did, because when people actually worked together, they could show that the "whole" is far greater than the sum of its parts.  I see that you are a person who is truly interested in bettering Wikipedia, and I take no offence at all, and actually appreciate the time you have taken in trying to figure out my own stumbling efforts to improve it myself.


 * Scott P. (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop opening up multiple Talk sections making the same point
Hi Scott, regarding your edits at WT:NPOV, please stop opening multiple Talk page sections to make essentially the same point, over and over. Open one section to raise your concern, make your best argument, and the see if there's support for the policy change you're interested in. If you're not developing support for your proposed changes, it's best to drop it. Repeatedly bringing up the same point can be seen as disruptive editing. Thanks... 12:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Zach, I take it then that you must disagree with my proposal then? Might I be able to ask specifically why?  I am hoping to get someone, anyone, who can intelligently and rationally defend the current policy, and not merely try to make "procedural maneuvers" to shut down the discussion.  If only one person were capable of rationally and convincingly explaining why my proposal does not make sense, I would be happy to "shut up" on this subject. Scott P. (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You've made 200 of the past 500 edits to that talk page (the closest editor to that has only made 60 edits). You're not being shut down, just asked to not continuously add new sections as you please because you're not satisfied with responses to what is essentially the same complaint. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I just noticed that Zach set up the section in question as a part of the earlier conversation.  That was a reasonable and good move.  Actually I made not a single edit for about the last three days, until today, I will be happy to keep my comments about this confined to the last major section I added.  As a note of explanation, the new section I started was immediately following  my previous section, but "indenting" the section does make more sense.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not change replied-to posts or change other editors' posts. --Neil N  talk to me 13:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your posting style
If you made 20+ straight edits to my talk page, I would not be happy. Perhaps reflect a bit more before hitting Save? --Neil N  talk to me 23:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, you're right. That editor is probably out of here for good, and I guess its time for me to leave for a while too. Scott P. (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
Are you getting my emails? It doesn't seem like it. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and thanks Neil for all of your replies.

Following is a copy of the discussion that started on Neil's page, and which includes some minor grammar syntax and other tweaking of my most recent replies, with no change to their meaning:Scott P. (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so Chandler was sent packing because of an over-abundance of spelling, grammar, punctuation, word-usage-errors and policy-ignorance errors in her first four edits. That thinking certainly has a somewhat reasonable ring to it, no doubt, but..... Why have a system where newbies seem to be used simply for backyard target-shooting-practice shenannigans? Is that fair to Chandler, or to Wikipedia itself? Why not simply be honest and set up a new policy about the special rules for Newbies?

Such a new policy could read something like this: Newbie Verification: New contributors who have 5 or more spelling, grammar, or word usage errors in their first 5 article-space edits will be banned for one year? Why not merely state simply and fairly what is required of Newbie editors, and at least let them know why they are being effectively banned from here?

Maybe now is the time to consider such a new policy that would clarify the true "entrance requirements"? If we had such a policy, I would bet many would carefully take it upon themselves to improve their writing quality, and their policy-knowledge over the course of that year, and then would be capable of writing truly good edits at first go upon their return, thus simplifying what is obviously now a very difficult and painful process for Newbies, and for peole trying to put out the fire-hose with another fire-type behavior of their own called Newbie Abuse, plain, simple, and clear to all? [User:Scottperry|Scott P.] 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And yes I know that the policy pages is where I should be making such a proposal, but there again, why not administer that process of policy development more fairly, as well while you're at it? My last proposal was essentially gunned-down using procedural maneuvers, and not any truly fair and transparent process that should encourage reason and logic, not secretive decisions made by a group of editors operating anonymously.  Why would I want to go back there at all, only to be essentially blocked from there a third time using mere secretive maneuvering and not simple reason or logic? Is this not true that this is how that place operates too?  Has it not now become a place where brute-force and censorship seem to prevail using procedural maneuvers to dazzle, and where policy-newbies like myself are essentilly routinely and systematically gunned-down too.  Systematically gunned down you say?  Yes, but in a much more sophisticated way, as is necessarily required when dealing with slightly more "seasoned" editors such as myself. And still, my last major specific question at NPOV about the true impact of weighting articles goes specifically unanswered by all there, yet here I am, no answers to my own major question, feeling the need to leave that page, because the primary dialogue between Neil and myself was effectively shut down, before any legitimate answers could be provided.  [User:Scottperry|Scott P.] 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now someone may want to gun-me down with a real block because of my having to be the unfortunate poor blighter who dares to describe honestly the state of the emperor's clothes . We shall see. Scott P. (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted you to know that having reviewed my 'contribution' on Neils page, if you are left with the feeling that I was being harsh towards you, then I apologise, because that was not my intention. I agree very much with the sentiment behind your initial post there. Kinda busy, but I do wish to return and expand a little, ok? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Roxy, and no problem. Scott P. (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, I didn't get a wink of sleep last night because of this little bru-ha-ha (admittedly of my own origin). I will definately be out of here for a little while.  Thanks to all for their putting up with both myself, and a system that still seems to intrinsicly encourage more discord than harmony amongst editors.  Scott P. (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A parting bit of food for thought
After my last long-winded lament, I decided to do a little thought experiment in Wikipedia based on my last "speech". I began to wonder how two specific articles in Wikipedia might have fared since 2009. Guess which two articles I had in mind? Why Wisdom and Macheavelli of course! Before going to both articles, I predicted to myself that the 2015 Wisdom would read more like a historical piece on a long lost cult, and the 2009 Wisdom would actually respect the topic as a living philosophy. I also predicted that the Macheavelli of 2015 would look more like a masterful genuis, and the Macheivelli of 2009 would look more like the true rogue that he once had a reputation for being. Lo and behold. I was unfortunately not at all surprised. In the Wisdom article, I found it to be particularly striking how the "Philosophy" section of that article has changed.

As anyone here who might have the patience to allow their ears to be offended by my recent various soliloquies might have picked up, it seems to me these days that while technology and science have moved forward in almost seemingly miraculous ways, philosophy and morals are currently in the reverse (with overdrive) gear. I know WP is truly only reflecting greater meta-shifts of society at large, and perhaps it is foolish of me to expect that WP is capable of doing anything more than merely reflecting whatever environment in which it finds itself, but I did have a dream that there are some things that are true for all times, perhaps not? I had a dream that WP might be able to be a light-house helping all ships to steer true and keep off of the rocks. I suppose that instead it must merely be another ship in the harbor, just one of many, but the one that somehow convinced the others that it was really a light house.

Scott P. (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A remark after 6 days:
 * I find it to be noteworthy that after 6 days, my assertion that "Machiavelli now rules Wikipedia in the place of Wisdom", seems to be an accepted and almost preferred point of fact, with no objections by anyone. So be it.  Duly noted. Scott P. (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You realize that both cases may be attributed to editors concluding that engaging with you bears little fruit, right? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:43, 18 May 2015
 * As I noted at NPOV, I have now realized that my arguments bore little fruit for anyone, thus I have no plans on resuming these arguments any time soon, if ever again. As usual, you are right again Neil.  (I hate it when that happens!) Scott P. (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Where I am today
In case anyone might be wondering where I am today.... I just spent most of the day flying back from California to Michigan, all based on 2 hours of sleep. Will be back "at it" tomorrow.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS
I think that you would be well advised to read WP:CANVASS, and then remove the posting you made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine - your post is clearly not a neutral notification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, you are entirely correct that I am not neutral in that discussion. But that has never stopped anyone before from calling an RFC, has it?  Actually, the balance of the editors over at the E-meter talk page for or against the reversion is about 5 to 1.  Now I am wondering who is being canvassed by whom over there?  Hmm... Scott P. (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm all you like. I have pointed out that WP:CANVASS indicates that notifications should be neutral. Yours clearly isn't. From past experience, such non-neutral notifications tend to backfire - which is why I suggested you removed it. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm also wondering why an experienced editor would be more concerned about a minor thing like my "tone" in the RFC request, but apparently not care one whit about the rather flagrant WP Policy violations that I'm trying to address in that RFC request. Hmm... Scott P. (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If your incessant hmming is intended to infer that I am in some way involved with scientology, you are way off the mark. I am not now, and nor have I ever been a member of any religious organisation concocted by a third-rate science-fiction hack writer, have never been on either end of an E-meter, and have not in any past life ever witnessed gorillas in DC9s tossing A-bombs into volcanoes (or if I have, I have no recollection of it - not that I believe in past lives, being the godless infidel I am...). I tend to avoid Scientology-related disputes, as a monumental waste of time that could be better employed elsewhere. And incidentally, per Requests for comment, an RfC statement should be " neutral and brief", which again appears not to be the case (you've also failed to include the RfC template). You might do well to withdraw the entire thing, and start again when you've understood the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My incessant hmming is perhaps a habit that I have recently gained as a result of my recent concern about articles like the E-meter article. Since I hmmmed at you twice, then I doubly apologize to you for my excessively hmmming at you Andy.  Why am I concerned about such articles?  Because it now appears to be a WP-wide phenomenon, in so far as any cult related articles are concerned.  The members of the cult routinely "overpower" the non-cult editors, then quietly gain control of the article.  This is amply evident in the E-meter article.  They are still relatively quiet about this with fairly high-profile articles like the Church of Scientology article, but if you were to take the time to review articles like the Prem Rawat article or the Unification Church article, you might begin to see a very consistent pattern with cult related articles.  The Unification Church article isn't as bad as the Prem Rawat article, but there is what I will call a continual battle, with the cults sometimes gaining the upper hand, and often being the majority of the editors on such articles.  I thank you for the RFC template, and I will try to simplify my RFC at the medical page.  Scott P. (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am even more confused now - is your post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine actually supposed to be an RfC itself, rather than a notification of a RfC at Talk:E-meter? If so, it is clearly misplaced. RfCs concerning content for a particular article go on the relevant article talk page, and not elsewhere - and we certainly don't have two simultaneous RfCs on the same topic at the same time. And to be frank, I can't really see why you think that the WikiProject Medicine talk page is appropriate anyway - this isn't really a medical issue. And regarding 'cults', I'll not dispute that there are problems with POV-pushing, but there are mechanisms to deal with the problem. They may not always be entirely successful, but they are more likely to succeed than lone attempts to fix the problem carried out with little regard for normal practice. And for the record, I express no particular opinion on whether any of the organisations you name is or isn't a cult - it isn't for me to judge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't do RFC's very often. Sorry about that.  I was erroneously trying to follow what I saw as another editor's RFC posting pattern, but I will change the Medical post to merely being a reference to the e-meter talk page RFC.  Thanks again for the help.  Scott P. (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I have reported your conduct to the Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring page.


 * I've always understood that an edit war was defined as three reversions. As I have only done 2, apparently you now redefine an edit war as only two reversions?  Why did you cross-post the same incident on two different admin notice boards, by the way? Scott P. (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I also would very much appreciate it if you might refrain from cluttering up this talk page with duplicate and empty discussion section headers. If you accidentally create an empty and duplicate discussion section, please delete it as well.  In other words, if you leave a mess on another editor's talk page, in the future, you might consider trying to "clean-up just a bit after yourself".  Thanks SFarney, Scott P. (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What the heck are you on about, Scott? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours, which I am not so 'on about' nearly a day later. I cleaned it up though.  I wasn't so 'on' about the complaint, just about the empty double header you 'left' for me, but it's OK.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, this rather amazing claim by an editor who wished to single handedly pronounce to the rest of us that he had now declared that the 3RR rule was now the 2RR rule, was shot down without comment in the admin notice board. Fortunately that editor, a Mr. Kim Jong...... never mind.... was not taken seriously (today). Scott P. (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So that you're not blindsided; one can edit war with one edit.  Tide  rolls  01:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please give me an example? Doesn't sound feasible to me.  As far as I have ever understood for the last 11 years I've been here, an edit war always involves a "pattern" of what one might call "bad faith" edits.  One single edit does not constitute any kind of a "pattern".  So what exactly are you saying User:Tide rolls? Now a single edit standing by itself is defined as some kind of a "pattern" or what? Now 3RR does not mean 3RR?  The semantics of this place are starting to get rather fuzzy and weird if you ask me.  1=pattern, 3RR=2RR.  How can anyone understand anything when the titles of the policies become meaningless?  Weird weird weird.  Scott P. (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been here 11 years and haven't read WP:Edit warring? Check out the last sentence of the lede. You should seriously seek the advice of more informed editors before venturing out into the mainspace. What other policy pages have you not read?  Tide  rolls  02:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as I expected, more heated words with no diffs. Much sound and fury........ as a certain bard once said. Scott P. (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." You did read that, right?  Are we pretending it doesn't say that? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bye. Scott P. (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When your talk page comments are getting suppressed, you are talking about being followed by strangers and the FBI, and other editors are asking for you to be blocked, it's probably a good time to take a break from Wikipedia and deal with whatever real life stuff is happening. Wikipedia and this article will be here tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. There is no deadline on Wikipedia which means that articles don't need to be fixed all in one day but gradually over time, they will be improved. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tyranny and ignorance vs: freedom and wisdom
(This conversation is a continuation of the last comment immediately above)

Actually, when people mess with me and my favorite hobby (Wikipedia), I tend to want to mess with them. Perhaps that's why I get messed with, but that's just how I roll. No, it is my decision not to disappear from WP until I get what the Scientologist's refer to as R2-45'd. I really don't care who they are, that's just how I roll. (And no, they probably won't do that to me now, because I just posted about it here, and for other obvious reasons.) Scott P. (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * They've "messed" with me in the past, and they didn't fare all that well then. This time I think I know enough to make them fare a little worse yet.  We shall see.  (And no, I was never a member, but I was very much in "their way".) By the way, the FBI isn't "following me" in the sense that I think you are referring to, but I do now know for a fact they (and other law enforcement folks) do now have at least a little interest in the outcome of my "small" concern here, and for that I am grateful to them. Fortunately I live in the United States and not North Korea, much as I know "our friends" would like to "fix". Here law enforcement still generally "works", and mafia like tactics are still most often thwarted or stopped by the good folks in law, working together with their friends, who don't like to take Wiki-Breaks I suppose. :-) Scott P. (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wish you hadn't changed the header so it looks like something which I didn't write. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now fixed Liz. Please feel free to remove your comment immediately above if you wish, and I would then remove this one.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm fine with how you addressed my concern. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so you are aware
I've moved the new thread you started on 'seeming security related anomalies' on ANI to the bottom of the main E-Meter thread - it clearly all belongs together, and discussing issues in two different threads is confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WT:RfA
Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please consider undoing this closure. Even if your evaluation at the time may be accurate, there are actually several reasons why this closure is not appropriate, the main one being that it is still very much on-going and that listed RfCs are generally expected to stay open for 30 days - unless a clear consesus emerges and little further discussion has taken place for a while, or if the participants are in agreement that it can be closed early. See WP:RfC. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,


 * Generally, once an RfC has wound down, and no new points are being brought up, but editors are spending days rehashing the same points over and over, it is time to close. Per WP policy on ending RfC's the 30 day mark is only a "default" length of RfC as suggested only by WMF software.  It is free to be altered as needed per the situation.  What new points or info might you have that could possibly add to the conversation? If you have some new undiscussed point or info, I would be happy to consider it.  Otherwise, before I came into the conversation, not a single "new vote" had been cast since June 13, a day ago, and the only conversation there was pointlessly going back and forth between myself (supporting tighter security) and three or four others (supporting no tightening of security), pointlessly for pages and pages on end.  So, whatever new point or info you might have, I'm all ears.


 * Scott P. (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm misreading WP:RfC, but it says "[an RfC] can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor". You were not an uninvolved editor in this discussion: you !voted as "Support Strongly" and have made exactly 21 comments on the RfC. No new !votes for only a day doesn't warrant closure and there was active discussion merely an hour or two before you closed. I don't want to sound like a hounder and I'm not attacking you personally, but I really think it would be better if you reverted your closure. Give more people the chance to find the RfC and comment on it if they want. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't patronise me please, Scott. I've been around for a very lomg time and spent most of my 5 admin years launching, particpating in, and closing a lot of very important discussions. I said there were several reasons, one golden rule is that you don't close an RfC you're involved in, it's a sure fire way of getting yourself into hot water. That said, if nobody else complains about the closure, as I'm a genial kind of chap and not one of those younger, aggressive admins, I'll let it go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In this edit you clsoed an RfC that you have been very involved with. I have reverted the closure. If you wish to sugest that an uninvolved editor should close now, yiu may, but do not close an RfC that you are so clearly involved with. DES (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, so one of you guys revert my closure. I am done contributing there.  Scott P. (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For future reference, I think Closing discussions is the page Scott needs to read.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Madhhab
Hi, please do NOT rename pages based on Google hit count. Wikipedia uses accepted Arabic transliteration as agreed by editors working in various WikiProjects (for instance, WikiProject Islam) and the Google hit count is not a criterion. Additionally, the numbers shown by Google on the first result page have nothing to do with real number of hits. What is also very important, it is NOT ALLOWED to move pages by cut-and-paste because it removes all attribution to a page - see this Help page for instructions on carrying out page moves. Finally, please ask beforehand for consensus when wishing to move a highly edited page. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  00:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Time
Apart from the concerns I have raised on the talk page I note that the information you removed (without explanation) you claim to have downloaded on 28 June 2016. How did you manage that? 94.175.0.86 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, please let us discuss this further with the hope of coming to a better common understanding, at the article in question's talk page, Time:talk. I believe some greater commonality of viewpoints will most probably be found there. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Ward. 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) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed and thanks! Scott P. (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

edit warring at Lavoy Finicum
In this diff you re-restored text I reverted without discussion. Oh sure, you started a thread at talk but that looks like WP:GAMING if you don't wait for a meaningful response. Note the original section heading violates TPG too... Parallels between story of Finicum's book and the aims of the Malheur Occupiers is notable and relevent.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

edit warring at Occupation article too
I see you're doing the same thing here. In this case you re-restored a date fact that it is the opposite of that stated in the wikilinked article, and is the opposite of that stated in the RS I added and you removed (I speak of the date they named the group) You should verify all text is supported by the sources before you post it, but its really really dumb to edit war over factually wrong stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to work together
Hi NewsGuy, I've placed a reply on your talk page at Finicum and the Bundy's. Thanks for the input. Scott P. (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That reply at my talk page fails to address the substance of this warning, which is.... a single restoration without discussion = edit warring; you don't need to propose to follow BRD, nor is your following BRD conditional on anything anyone else does. So I don't really know what to make of the subsection heading "proposal to work together".  I'm neither for nor against you, nor any of your edits because they're yours.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

More edit warring at Project page
Scott, I invite you to self-revert this undiscussed re-revert. If you refuse, I will be seeking a block against you, and the main theme will be my insisting, based on your past history, that the only way to teach you that a single undiscussed re-revert is edit warring is by imposition of a block. You have previously claimed in other threads that you get three free passes under 3RR, and you have already been told by me and others that it doesn't work that way. So self revert and admit you did wrong, or I'll feel it is necessary to teach this simple principle by seeking that block. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Childish...
Per your own definition, an edit war is when you revert someone's stuff without any explanation on the article talk page. You have now reverteted my edits three times without any such explanations on the article talk pages, and you reverted my edits before I restored them. Who is edit warring. If you would like to engage in a logical discussion about the edits, instead of all of this puffery about edit wars, please, by all means, I am awaiting your logic on the talk pages in question. And please do not delete the Project page rules until you agree to the rules themselves, which boil down to Transparency, Honesty, and Collegiality. Attempts at coercion via procedural maneuvering instead of true logic and reason in a friendly manner.... how sad. Scott P. (talk)

EW filing notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"History of UTC" nominated for deletion
I have nominated "History of UTC" for deletion. The discussion is at Articles for deletion/History of UTC. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)