User talk:Scott MacDonald: Difference between revisions

Talk: List of Spammers

I got your message about your reverting my undoing of the blanking of the "list of spammers" discussion. Looking it over, I understand now what the problem was and appreciate your help.

The question I had restored had to do with whether or not Extra Reading Company could be considered a spammer. There's an article in Secular Homeschool magazine #4 alleging their practice of spamming listserves. I agree that this, even if true, probably wouldn't qualify the company to make the list of spammers since it's small time, but for my info would sourcing the question have made it acceptable to post on the article's talk page? (Just curious; I'm not going to post it again.)

Thanks also for the suggestion to make an account. This is a shared IP. I'll do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.30.158 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably. The problem is that we can't have people going to a pejorative list and putting ideas on talk pages without some source. It is far too open to someone going to say "List of criminal x" and posting some innocent person's name to the talk page, when all the world can see the talk page. Thanks for you understanding. Yes, make an account, and have a look at the welcome page.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Sailer

I must ask you why you keep vandalizing Steve Sailer's page and rewriting it as an attack piece? Regardless of how much you might dislike the man, you're edits include nothing descriptive about him or his writing. It is simply a compendium of condemnations intended to elicit a negative perception, with absolutely nothing that could allow the reader to judge for himself. It is, in short, venal agitprop. JackDBear41 Oct. 23 2008

Em, look again, I was the one taking that stuff out.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake.--JackDBear41 (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Phillips Price

Just to let you know I've asked for cleanup and wikification of your new Morgan Phillips Price article. It's a very good start, but it does seem to lack sources: do you know where you could find any?

Just thought I'd let you know. Happy editing! Dougano (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake! That's silly. I created the article, and you splatted it with a template 10 seconds later before I added the sources. If you want to hep, please do, but this isn't really very constructive.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, I'm still way to new to this. Go ahead and take it off, I'll leave you to it. Sorry! Dougano (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Management of RFAR threads is normally left to the clerks. I reverted your removal of my proposal and realized afterward that I had accidentally removed your threaded discussion as well. Since you reposted that to the talk page and RFAR isn't set up for threaded discussion, I hope you do not object to that accidental action of mine. I strongly object to yours. Durova^Charge! 08:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You started a discussion in an inappropriate place. I removed it. It's called a wiki.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's called a wiki" relates to article space, not arbitration or talk. Please do not move my posts again. Durova^Charge! 08:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am writing a long reply to your proposal. But I doubt that the arbcom page is the place for a long threaded discussion. Moving it was trying to be helpful to the project, and that's what one does on a wiki. I can't promise not to move your posts in future.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then please contact me in advance. Durova^Charge! 09:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I probably won't. If I get it wrong, I can be reverted, as I suspect you will now be by someone else.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection if a clerk moves my post from arbitration. Now that I have expressed my request civilly in several ways, do not be surprised if I seek administrator intervention if you persist. On the merits of your objection, though, I wonder about the reasoning. You suppose it would create a legal risk if the Committee sought appropriate professional assistance. Now I'm no lawyer and I'm not qualified to give legal opinions, but to my layman's eye it appears much more risky that they accept these cases and in the Jim62sch decision specifically invite more without any attempt at obtaining qualified guidance. Common sense suggests that if they retained the consulting services of credentialed professionals, then it would satisfy concerns about whether they had conducted matters appropriately in the event that one of these cases ever went badly wrong. More importantly, it would probably provide valuable guidance in the most difficult matters. I have seen some of these firsthand and it is clear that they struggle. Durova^Charge! 09:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to the substantive point beneath the proposal. As to "admin intervention". For what? I was bold and moved your discussion to the discussion page, which I believe is the right place for it, you reverted me. That's it. Personally, after your aggression here, I hope we don't interact again.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Pastor Ed Kalnins

I made the floowing statements:

Kalnins is controversial for suggesting that Jesus Christ had warlike thoughts and instincts, that criticism of president Bush’s handling of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina would condemn a person to hell, and that voting for John Kerry would block a person from entering heaven.

Kalnins preached that Jesus was not a pacifist, but had warlike thoughts and instincts, and that the American occupation of Iraq was a manifestation of an unseen war in the spirit world. “What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct.”

Kalnins stated that criticism of Bush’s handling of hurricane Katrina would condemn a person to hell; “I hate criticisms towards the President because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."

Kalnins preached that voting for Senator John Kerry would block entry into heaven. During the 2004 election season, after praising Bush's debate performance against Kerry, Kalnins stated, "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation."

These quotes were from my own transcriptions, which came from actual videotapes here: http://www.wasillaag.net/all.html.

They were verified by Nico Pitney and Sam Stein, who cited identical quotes here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

Nico Pitney was Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and Managing Editor of ThinkProgress. He lives in Washington, DC, and has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the BBC. Nico can be reached at pitney@huffingtonpost.com.

Sam Stein has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com.

Kalnins - Find some independent sources. Not partisan ones and come back.--

Mark Silva, White House correspondent for The Chicago Tribune, writes that “Kalnins has preached that critics of Bush will be banished to Hell, questioned if people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to Heaven, charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraq were part of a war ‘contending for your faith’; and that Jesus ‘operated from that position of war mode’.” This language is almost identical to the portions deleted from my final edit of my article, only without the direct quotes supporting the summary. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palins_past_pastor_bushfoes_he.html#more —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox addition or removal

Hello. I assumed choice of putting an infobox *in* was a matter of taste. And, if so, taking it out would be vandalism. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake. If it is a matter of "taste", then removing it is also a matter of taste, and taste needs discussed to reach consensus. There's no reason to assume your taste should govern and someone else's is vandalism. This is a collaborate project, we discuss things, we don't just revert without discussion because it suits our taste. The general taste of the community is not for succession boxes for very minor offices.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Adrastus of Cyzicus

Hi,

Do you mind giving me a few minutes to work on this before moving it back? I'm repurposing it, as stated in the edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss before moving an article. Actually, I wrote it, so I'd like to be able to opine before you reposition it.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MacKinzie Kline

I've added several WP:RS reliable sources to this article which should also be enought to meet Notability guidelines. Consquently I've removed your prod from it. Feel free to give it the once over to make sure you're happy. Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Look ok now, thanks.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick on a pig

Hi

You may be wondering why I removed your edits at this article. If we separate the two things, the phrase and the book with the name:

Wikipedia hardly ever has entries about phrases. There is usually very little to say about them except what they mean. You will find virtually no examples on Wikipedia.

On the other hand the book is best talked about on the page of the author. The author is known for virtually nothing except the book, so there is plenty of room in the article to talk about it. If you have more things to say about the book I suggest you add them to Victoria Clarke. I strongly recommend not trying to write an article about the phrase.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on this. If you have concerns, please take them to the talk page. Don't just keep removing the article before it's finished. If we disagree we can ask others - isn't that how it works?--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your move of the "Taylor Hall (ice hockey b. 1991)" page

Hi.

Actually, the naming convention is what the page was named before you moved it. I suggest you contact an admin to have the move undone (unless you're an admin yourself).

Thanks, LarRan (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also one "Taylor Hall (ice hockey b. 1964)". I guess he's a player too. Your move wouldn't make these distinguishable from each other.

LarRan (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lipstick on a pig

I have nominated Lipstick on a pig, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipstick on a pig. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

J Bishop

a case for checkuser

Worth a try, but I'm always surprised at how difficult it is to get a request granted. The article, Talk page and the two previous AFD discussions all look deeply compromised by SPAs. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Please re-read WP:SNOW... it says:

"If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."

And

In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate.

WP:SNOW is about closing AFDs early when consensus is unanimous.. not when it doesn't appear there will be consensus one way or another, but a lot of people disagree. Also see numerous DRVs overturning WP:SNOW closes like this, the most recent being Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_4#Wasilla_Bible_Church. But most of all please stop trying to steamroll over objections with WP:SNOW. It's very rude. --Rividian (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's wonking. Basically, let me ask you, given the debate, do you think there's any realistic chance of a delete consensus developing? Consider also that the article has changed to meet many concerns (it has now a long origins section) and that the nominator has withdrawn his objection (and perhaps other delete voters will too). I'm not asking whether you think it should be deleted, I'm asking whether you think the debate has a snowball's chance of reaching a delete consensus? Honest answer?--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My concerns were never addressed at all. The sections I said were not encyclopedic were just made longer... you might even say lipstick was put on the pig. I lack the ability to predict what a discussion page will look like in 4 days time, so I have no idea how to answer your question. We have discussions to discuss an issue... not to guess the result. Guesses are often quite wrong, especially when reasonable people are objecting to the guesser. --Rividian (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about content can be discussed on the talk page. The concerns are legitimate. I (and the nominator agrees) firmly believe the attempt to delete the article outright have no chance of succeeding.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what's the harm in letting the AFD run? If I wanted to overturn this at DRV I probably could, see the precedent, but I do not have the patience. I'm just saying, closing AFDs based on guesses, especially where you have an obvious bias, is not a very good practice. --Rividian (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, and I know it's a minor point, I didn't close it. The nominator did. I certainly would not have closed this debate.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting to restore a close is basically the same closing it... it's making an edit to make sure the close you agree with sticks. Wikipedia:Speedy keep is pretty clear that it's only a valid close if there are no delete votes except from the nominator. --Rividian (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pontypridd & Llantrisant Observer

Pontypridd & Llantrisant Observer often but this is a reliable and independent news source

As I'm sure both of its readers would testify :) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually 12,451 - but still.[1]--Troikoalogo (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Suril Shah

Now this article contains proper references section and citations. Neutral point of view is maintained. I think the article is now in good shape. As its nominated in AfD by you, I'd like to know your views, whether the current form of the article is good enough to "Keep" it - and nomination can be withdrawn. Thanks for your time on this subject. Whizsurfer (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

lipstick

Hi there, I actually prefer the edit offered by the anon editor to my own (i.e. the one which refers to the 2008 campaign, but doesn't mention the stupid details), but need a break too.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I hate McCain too. NPOV is such a bore sometimes.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you hate McCain, why would you argue (to the hilt, I might add) with inserting the 4 words about his use of the word to refer to Clinton? How is that not NPOV? Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I just didn't see it as relevant. I do try to leave me POV at the door. Palin is scary, but POV pushers (not, I do make clear that I ever accused you of that) are just so so dull about here.--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Core Values". "Unbiased". "No-Spin Zone"............

Why, after I identified the public source of the Republican wolf cry/lies over Obama's Lipsick-on-a-Pig comment, would someone consider it a correction of bias to remove the source and return the accusation back to an anonymous one?

QuintBy (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look

Why doncha: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I can appreciate the reasons for your ire, but would you mind toning down the language at WP:BN? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've disengaged now. I'm afraid when people say "I'd like to assume good faith, but I'm a little busy with this conspiracy theory that has you as a member of the dark forces", I tend to lose it. Perhaps you might help all of us both to be cooler and actually to AGF, rather than just reference it. As I've said elsewhere, those that are watching for the abusive socks are doing a good job, they just need to watch they don't get paranoid.--Troikoalogo (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The socks are a problem and need to be rooted out. And people need to AGF. And remain cool. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

lipstick on a pig

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article lipstick on a pig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Troikoalogo, I just wanted to drop a line here in the name of civility. I really hope that I can better explain my edits and show that they clearly aren't drive by POV. I do hope we can come to a consensus. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood thanks. I just find your objection to any mention of the media furore hard to understand as a reasonable position - but perhaps that's down to my lack of imagination. ;) --Troikoalogo (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Thank you for your comment.[2] I see that I have misunderstood some of your edits. I will strike some of my comments accordingly, and am sorry for any stress I have caused you. Please understand that I was working on a difficult case, involving many editors, with time pressure. Under such circumstances my error rate may have been higher than if there were more time to check everything twice. Wikipedia would benefit from more editors helping to reduce the backlogs at WP:SSP and WP:RFCU.

Congratulations on this DYK above. That looks like an important and interesting article. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Warning

Firstly, I would appreciate it if you'd talk to me like I'm a human instead of a robot. This includes not slapping templates on my talk page. I have removed the template, if you wish to discuss things with me, do so in your own words.

Now obviously I'm not going to readd the section in question today as it would violate 3RR, but I'm going to need a little more than "it violates a rule". Yeah, and I explained why the rule should be ignored on the article talk page.

Also suggesting that you not threaten people with blocks, since you don't appear to be in any position to hand them out. McJeff (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, we can discuss this on the talk page. I apologise for the template. As to the block, trust me.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair deal. I know BLP is stringently enforced and I won't readd the source without discussion, but I do personally think this one is worth IAR'ing and have explained myself. Sorry for any incivility on my part (including the brusque talk page post on Tucker Max that I posted before I saw this). McJeff (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

ok but

Just link to the relevant discussion. Then it's easier for everyone and people won't have to take what you say on faith.:) Although I still hope the article can simply be WP:NPOVed, WP:RS added, and grown (not that it's anything to do with me). I'm from the old school crossed with the new, articles could reflect the good and the bad, assuming some of the bad is not just in poor sources, but probably also in WP:RS. What was said in the version I saw really wasn't entirely offensive, IMHO. Maybe less of it could have been pruned- just my opinion.:) Sticky Parkin 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't link to the discussion bit. If I see a BLP vio, or heavily biased material in a BLP, I remove it. We can then discuss it while the offending material is out. I think you need to review the BLP policy, biased material gets removed, and then we can discuss putting some or all of it back, without the bias. Although, personally, I've no intention of working on the article. Those that want to can work out what to put back.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Boilerplate at Monarchy of Canada

I find your removal of the boiler plate and the accompanying edit summary perplexing: There have been literally tens of thousands of words written over the last week, at various talk pages, about the images at Monarchy of Canada. The length and intensity of those discussions alone prove that there are issues with the images on that article, even if one ignores the bunching, inconsistency with MoS, and a picture sized to a miniscule 50px. Are you sure it was apt to remove the plate? --G2bambino (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you restore the boiler plate Scott MacDonald. Trust me (as a witness) there's still disagreements over the 'images'. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the casual reader needs to be warned about stylistic image disputes (like they do about factual or Bias issues). Maybe it should go on the talk page?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see then. Okay, well, it was only put there to get other users' attention and increase the likelyhood of some of them aiding in settling the argument. The plate exists, so I thought it was valid. --G2bambino (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way to call for others to look at a problem is to use an WP:RFC on the article. Because it is members of the community rather than the many casual readers you want to attract.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're actually way past that point now; been through ArbCom, and now it's at WT:MOS. So, yes, you're probably right about the needlessness of the BP at this moment. --G2bambino (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hill of Tarvit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Friesland

You might consider joining WikiProject Friesland for we allways need more participants. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Em? I don't even know where Friesland is. Is it a supermarket for Fries?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We can always use someone to help us to cope with vandalism on our articles or to create templates, upload images. No real knowledge is required. Just more members is what we need and a more internation participant role would be great. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several hundred wikiprojects that could probably do with your help doing the same. Why don't you join them?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Labelling

You may not have thought of this, but labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack, and assertions about "cabals" were specifically discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kelly, memes, and cabals. It will help your interactions with others if you avoid such labelling in future. You may find it helpful or at least amusing to read WP:TIAC or WP:OWB (item 17). Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I used "labelling" language. But there is quite obviously an...em... number(?) of editors who are coloured by their strong opposition to the subject who have worked the article to a version they like and are incredibly hostile to anyone pointing to any residual bias in the article. I believe that Wikipedia seeks neutral description (without evaluation) and records, without favour, the significance, impact and (third party) commentary on a subject. It does not matter that you, I or the vast majority of "scientists" think something is bogus, we don't imply that in our article and certainly not in the opening sentence. Even a majority evaluation is still an evaluation. I changed "assertion" (which is a pejorative description of any advanced proposition) first to "belief" (which it certainly is) and then to "argument" (which is again purely descriptive) and I was met by none other than an ex-arbitrator reverting me for reasons of his preference for a self-evidently evaluative statement [3], and then, when I marked up the article as {POV} other members of the group removed the tag, as evidently they liked the evaluative intro. Well, don't worry. I will edit the article no further. Consider me driven off. But, as to whether there is an unhealthy group/cabal at work here, I can only speak as to my experience. I have no desire to work with people who have so little interest in neutrality. (Oh, and before you dismiss me, I am not a proponent of the subject and would equally have opposed POV-pushing on the opposite direction). --Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Greenbank Gardens

On 30 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Greenbank Gardens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Mandelson returning to Brown Cabinet as Business Secretary

Of course Mandelson will be elevated to the peerage; in the United Kingdom we adopt a Parliamentary government with Prime Minister and Cabinet and in order to become a member of the Executive one has to be picked from the Legislature (either the Commons OR the Lords). Owing to Mandelson resigning after he was sacked by Blair from the Cabinet before he moved to Brussels as EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson had to resign his parliamentary seat as a Member of Parliament; and henceforth in order to serve in the Brown Cabinet he has to EITHER be a Lord or an MP (the latter is unlikely) and so it is logical that Mandelson will be issued with a life peerage in order to fulfil his new role as Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform from now onwards. Unlike the United States' way of governance whereby the President can nominate ANYONE to become a member of the Federal Government this is not the case in the United Kingdom; one has to either be a politician (in the Commons) or a former politician (in the Lords). PoliceChief (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of UK constitutional niceties. But we don't do "of course" deductions, we report what sources say, and what has been announced. And actually, you are not quite right. The legally Queen can appoint whoever she wants as a minister, it is simply an invariable convention that they be a member of the legislature.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well here is the confirmation that this 'convention' is to be upheld; and when was the last time neither a member of the Commons' or the Lords' was appointed a Government Minister or Secretary of State without hastily being elevated to the peerage or under a hereditary peerage I ask...? PoliceChief (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC) "Mandelson also gets two of his biggest desires - a return to centre stage in British politics, and the chance to get the coveted peerage he has always wanted." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/oct/03/gordonbrown.mandelson

WP:WORD

Re [4]: Who of the principal editors are you, your username isn't in the history and your userpage states nothing to that effect either? (This message of course is part of the classical engage-the-opponent-at-his-talk-page-with-unrelated-questions-and-requests-and-a-slightly-intimidating-tone routine.) Everyme 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(duely intimidated), hm, my edit summary was truthful, but also somewhat naughty. It shouldn't be relevant, but I did create that page. ;) Follow the clues.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good thing we're not the OWNers. Although you and I did contribute the bulk of the essay. At one point I figured the page was getting overladen with images and tbh I found them a tad too forcedly funny and thought they cluttered the page with too much colors (compare e.g. the average page design on Encyclopedia Dramatica). Everyme 20:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cathy Ashton

Most press accounts are calling her Cathy and she was approved by the EU commissioner yesterday to take over Mandelson's role. [5] Cheers --Patrick (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss this is the article's talk page. But your link says "poised" and "currently serves as Labour’s leader in the House of Lords". So she's not yet appointed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work!

Good job on the admin proposal. this is what I love about wikipedia-- mulling over a problem, not being able to solve it, and waking up to find someone else has already solved it for me and done what I was unable to do. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to drop by...

...and let you know how much I appreciated your contributions everywhere that our editing paths have crossed (here, here, and the comments of your I read here), but then I read your comments elsewhere on this page and I realized that none of this should come as a surprise to me. Keep up the good work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Scott, I just wanted to say thanks for your help on IRC. please accept this hot chocolate I specially searched on Commons prepared for you. :) --pfctdayelise (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Nyce userfy

Got it! Thanks so much! Will beging work on it shortly. Web Warlock (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I saw you undid my removal of a personal attack. Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but an uninvolved user said on an ANI thread that removing personal attacks from the talk page was acceptable, and removed several of them himself [6]. With that in mind, I request you revert your reversion of my edit. Thanks. McJeff (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RPA isn't policy and the question is always "is it helpful". You simply removing strong criticism about yourself that you don't like is unlikely to defuse and de-escalate the situation (and is seldom advisable anyway). If you can't work with the other editor, you might like to try dispute resolution--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It has already been done to the article before - there is no reason for that single personal attack to be allowed to remain. Don't readd it. McJeff (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove other people's comments. I saw no personal attack, and given the post was directed at you, you are not in a position to be neutral here. Removing posts here will not calm things down.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed references

I wasn't sure why you removed the references, so I undid that. Your comment was 'my bad', but if they were wrongly included in the article it was anothers mistake. Hang on!? that was me! There was no mistake. cygnis insignis 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, they are not references, since they are not referenced in the article. They are just a collection of articles by someone else, perhaps referring to the subject. There presence there is wholly unexplained. And it, as I suspect, they are critical articles,that's bad on a BLP. Particularly one that's had some real problems.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The citations supported the challenges to his taxonomic classifications, they are from a reliable sources. If you can find sources that show his descriptions and names are accepted, I would welcome their addition. I can see no conflict with BLP policy, it is a herpetologist's scientific descriptions which are disputed. The ref suggests his systematics are invalidated by the accepted rules of biological nomenclature. The removal of the unreferenced venomoids stuff was appropriate under BLP, and I understand the importance of that policy. Please restore it. cygnis insignis 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't respond so I restored it!? Can you please identify the BLP problem before reverting a third fourth time. My original edit was intended to establish that his attempts at renaming species were not accepted, these were the refs that supported that. Your actions are not protecting the document, as per BLP, they are disrupting the legitimate building of it. cygnis insignis 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, been a little distracted in the last few hours. Can we have this conversation on the talk page? You've still not said what it is referencing. But, as I say, the talk page of the article is the place. Please get a consensus before replacing any material removed for BLP concerns. Thanks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your question at my RFA

Hi Scott, and thanks for your question. I'm going to answer on the RFA page w/ links, but it's my wife's birthday, so I won't be able to do it before tomorrow. If you want a quick look, on the discussion page of my RFA (not the general page) is a print out with the top edits to individual articles. Take care. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy the party. I can hold off opining until you've time to respond. Cheers.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser

Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close at DRV

Please don't speedy close DRVs, such as the one for Seth Finkelstein, when they are started in good faith (user is not trolling, etc) and the last DRV was almost a year ago. WP:SNOW doesn't call for it, WP:BLP doesn't call for it. -- Ned Scott 02:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions, and provide me with important feedback. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to take your advice and do some significant article work as well. All the best, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Deckert

I deleted the thing, then lost my nerve. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Günter Deckert edit conflict

Ack. I almost had it. Give me 10 minutes, and then see how it looks. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 15:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. But please don't reinsert negative material until you've actually got the source. It's better to have nothing for a while then to have unsourced stuff of this nature.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look. I might have missed something. Hopefully this is better. Dlohcierekim 15:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are missing the point. It is still unsourced, that's unacceptable. I've reverted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you see my version or Pat's?? He revered my BLP removal. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I reverted you both. You version violated BLP too - no sources.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GOATs

I'm not sure from a quick check of your user page and contributions whether you're British or not, but there have been many press stories which have referred to the four Ministers Lord Darzi, Digby Jones (since resigned), Lord West of Spithead and Lord Malloch-Brown as 'GOATs' without fully explaining the term. So far as I can tell the original phrase was not actually said by Gordon Brown but used by his spokesman in a press briefing, and the media then adopted it and applied it to the individuals. I don't know if you want examples but I'm sure I could show you some. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess this is a case of "I've never heard of it", despite being British. I'll not argue the toss on this if you have.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: This

Hi buddy, to be honest I didn't really like that edit summary. I mean, the guy was clearly new to Wikipedia and had absolutely no idea what he was doing, but that's no need to relegate him using that language. Also, your comment to him wasn't of the greatest spirit and friendliness. I know you're only trying to point out his mistakes in a blunt way, but imagine yourself as a confused new user being berated by scary people who know what all the buttons do! Take care, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Look at the guy's contributions. I assumed a lot of good faith in what I posted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He's still new! We've all made errors. I spoke to another guy and he said it was still slightly bitey. I'm gonna e-mail the guy and tell him how things work around here. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through his contributions before doing anything. It took a lot of AGF to be a nice as I did. But you do as you please.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd

FYI, you may be interested to see that Ashley Todd was speedily deleted using CSD:G10 as the justification: "exists primarily to disparage its subject." I happen to disagree with this decision as the article was neutral and nothing on the AfD page implied it as an "attack" page, and content that this is out of process. I encourage you to chime in if you have an opinion either way at User_talk:Orderinchaos#Out_of_order_deletion_of_Ashley_Todd. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

give it a minute - sorting this off-wiki.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the AfD, I didn't think this was the 2nd nom. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Scott, thanks for fixing the AfD name. Kingturtle (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd also acknowledge Scott's great work on this matter. Orderinchaos 02:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat.3F

Can you expand on your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat.3F, please? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)