User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2011/October

List of Indian footballers who have played abroad
A lot has happen after 28th sep,2011 a lot of user has participated in discussion. lot of manipulation has done in that list article.Take a look and have a say on this. Preetam040 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna
Hello, ScottyBerg. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Fayerman (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My edits at Anthony Bologna's AfD
I was hoping it would be obvious that I made a mistake but it definitely started looking a little more intentional the second time I did it, so here's the news. I am editing from my phone and a glitch is causing me to inadvertently remove URLs near my comments. You actually edit conflicted me; I was trying to undo my own edit with a summary telling of the glitch, and that I'd vote again once I got to a computer. I just did the same damn thing to the comment you left me even though I reviewed those URLs you listed before I predictably, accidentally removed them, too. I'm sorry for giving you the extra work, and I appreciate that you kept my comment and the template I added. City O f Silver  00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one heck of a glitch! Wow. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And believe it or not, I just managed to resurrect your URLs. I honestly think it was specifically because I was previewing and seeing changes, since I didn't do either with my last edit at my talk and it worked. I'm done trying and failing to edit from my phone. I'm going to play Angry Birds instead. Thanks again. City O  f Silver  00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another good reason not to own an IPhone! ScottyBerg (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You deleted my edit on Yankee Doodle
The show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has been on 7 seasons, the next 2 seasons are already paid for. It's on track to be the longest running live-action comedy ever. I'd call that notable. 24.225.23.147 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the only edit I can find, and I was reverting vandalism. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street
Please use the discussion page before removing content from the article. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * May I acquaint you with BRD? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna
Your last removal went against the consensus of keeping the citation to the civil complaint. I reverted your edit. --Fayerman (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus, and you are edit-warring. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Marquez
To Scott Berg and Tony the Marine, I shall endeavor to gather citations for all legal decisions cited. As for comments made to me, I have no problem acknowledging that I am the primary source. Furthermore, In the Matter of the Petition of RAYMOND MARQUEZ, DETERMINATION, DTA NO. 818561, that I posted on JD Supra<> you can verify what the NYS Tax Appeal Division determined for yourself. As for the reference to the appeals of the attempt to withdraw Mr. Marquez's guilty plea, that statement finds support in the New York Times story by Selwin Raab who states in the last paragraph of his interview article dated July 6, 1997, for which I was present and was held in my Manhattan office, that, "[A]waiting the appeals court decision, Raymond Marquez says that his only remaining link to the numbers world is as a customer who ventures a few dollars on an occasion hunch." Additional reference is available from appellate court records, such as in, "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,v.RAYMOND MARQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; in which Judges: Rosenberger, J.p., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams, Saxe, JJ. decided as follows: Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered April 15, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted enterprise corruption and promoting gambling in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation and a 3-year period of conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed. Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas was properly denied. The original sentence agreement provided for 5 years probation, the first 90 days to be served in jail. Although that sentence would have been illegal, the court took proper curative action by eliminating the 90-day jail term and thereafter imposing a lawful sentence of probation only (see, Matter of Kisloff v Covington 73 NY2d 445; People v Monereau, 181 AD2d 918, lv denied 79 NY2d 1052). Since the sentence was no more severe, and indeed was clearly less harsh, than that promised, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his pleas. The confusion, if any, over the original sentence cannot be said to have created such an ambiguity that the voluntariness of the pleas is called into doubt. Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: MAY 7, 1998."

Since, not all decisions are are published, your request for citations is a bit burdensome. However, with your Pulitzer Prize winning abilities, I am sure you can confirm all of what I have stated as truthful. As for the ultimate determination for Unincorporated business tax owed that was originally well under 1 million dollars as discussed in the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal's decision that is available for viewing at  my statement can easily be verified.

As for the remaining citations needed, you can refer to the New York Times article entitled, Convicted Gambler Whose Lawyer Is His Son, By JOHN ELIGON, Published: May 27, 2008.

So, as far as I am concerned, I again insist that the post be made complete and that my edits be allowed to remain in tact. By the way, I am, as you well know a "primary source" and not some unverifiable opinionated editor. So you and your cronies had best take notice of what I have said herein. Omitting the the parts of the story that create balance is just as disingenuous as making an untruthful allegation. So just be fair about it and don't skew the story. You cooperation will be genuinely appreciated. Rdmlawpc (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Legal threats are absolutely unaccceptable on Wikipedia. See WP:LEGAL. Please remove your reference to "libel charge" in this post and the one on your talk page or I will raise this issue with administrators. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the threat. I've responded further on your talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Márquez 2
About 20 years ago, I saw his name mentioned in a Playboy magazine article. Since then I wanted to write something about him, but there was nothing in the internet until now. I have to admit that after getting to know you better, I have come to admire and trust your judgement. You really handled the situation well. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thank you! Same here. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I found two articles that provide further context.

Financial details:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/14/nyregion/police-raids-attempt-to-crush-a-notorious-numbers-game.html

Rikers Island / second-hand smoke lawsuit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/nyregion/14lawsuit.html?ref=nyregion

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cat registry, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Yoenit (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? This Huggle edit I made reverted vandalism. You restored the vandalism. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I am playing around with STiki, but it seems to be lagging behind a bit so I actually revert the reverter, rather than the vandalism itself. Yoenit (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's happened to me. I'd suggest sticking with Huggle. The same thing can happen with Huggle too, but there are safeguards to prevent one from reverting whitelisted users or revertng back to edits by the vandal. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bologna
You really should stop having your private little spat with Goutte. In case you didn't notice, an admin is in the process of closing the discussion, and the notice to that effect asks editors to stop editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't notice, actually. Thanks. I've reverted my last contribution to the page. That's really all I can do. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured you didn't notice, which is why I gave you a heads up. I left the same message for Goutte. He's been blocked for one of his last edits to the discussion, although I don't believe it's for not paying attention to the notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. Appreciate the heads-up. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Marquez
Nelsondenis248 (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits, re-configured the page a bit. I left a message on the talk page regarding the lead paragraph, something to consider.
 * Yes I saw, thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment
I rather see the RM article deleted all together then to have to see you put up with all the onging nonsense. You give the word and I'll ask my son to do it. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you and definitely appreciate your words of support on the article talk page, which I just read. But it's really not a big deal. The article is a very good one, informative, you were right to have started it and it does not deserve to be deleted. We certainly don't want to delete articles under those circumstances, and in any event it has moved beyond the point at which a deletion could even be possible (as this is a well known public figure and the article is well along in development). I hope that the SPA has gotten the message; if not, we can proceed with dispute resolution. Unpleasant as it is, it behooves us to bend over backwards to listen to representatives of BLPs. I admire your restraint in responding to him. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, I guess we'll let it go for now. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the SPA editor probably wants the article to be deleted at this stage, to be frank. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just give the final word. I don't want it to be held against me. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Creating a great article? I don't see how that can be held against you. Take care. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean the creation of the article. What I mean't was the deletion of it. Should we delete or should we wait? Tony the Marine (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely not. What would be the grounds? As I said earlier, it's a fine article. It is about a well-known person. One SPA editor being a pest is not reason to delete it. Why should all your good work go to waste? I'm a little surprised you're seriously entertaining the idea. If we deleted articles because of agita, we'd have very few good articles left. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, this should have been a DYK, but we seem to be way past the time limit. Too bad. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.55.235 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your corrections to the Zahi Hawass page are unwarranted
The site in question that you removed a link to actually contains links to real legal documents that back up what is stated on that page. It is all real and well attested in those documents and the Arabic press and even English language press. Just because you can't read Arabic doesn't mean you should dismiss something as non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.34.22.102 (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources are not permitted as external links by WP:BLP. Please do not reinstate. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:W. B. Yeats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-Published?
The previsous author didn't write that blog post that was linked to so I don't know how you can label it as such and use that as a reason to remove it. The linked article that you removed was not insignificant. It was what the New York Time article used as source and starting point for their own article on Hawass and his illegal activities concerning the Museum gift shop. It contains real evidence in the way of court documents and letter from such people as the Prime Minister.

Will you allow the controversy over the Museum gift shop, resulting in a year jail term and his removal, to be mentioned at all in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.194.196 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please respond Scotty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.194.196 (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See the section entitled "Further reading and external links" at WP:BLP. If you continue to want to use the link, you can raise the issue at the BLP noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William Lane Craig
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:William Lane Craig. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: strong doubts
Could you enumerate your doubts as to the Fair Use rationale in place for the image? And thanks for fixing my image. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)