User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2010/October


Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Dr Clark Double

Hello ScottyBerg, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Dr Clark Double) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is a blatant hoax and should be deleted under CSD G3. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
In fact (harrumph...), it was just speedied as a hoax. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dub Journalism

Dear Scotty, Like an ice-Berg, you lurk, 9/10ths unseen in the icy waters of World-Knowledge. And yet your beams of scrutiny have shattered my hoax, er, my hopes of informing the said World about this liberating and joyful new art-form. I understand the terms about requiring source references commensurate with consensus reality, and will republish the article when the literature of this World is liberally peppered with references to Dub Journalism. Meantime, I presume you will be beaming up my article and consigning it to that inglorious black-hole whence are hurled the pseudo-articles, the inaccurate and irrelevant gibberish of a misguided and misinformed Humanity. No hard feelings - Best wishes, The Dub Journalist, The Invertebrate Press Office, Cornwall. (To See this correspondence given the Dub Journalism treatment, see October 2010 issues of The Caterpillar and The Caterpillar Dub, soon to be published via the (inadmissable) website: www.yecaterpillar.blogspot.com) |||| —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Vulgata (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I appreciate your good humor over this. I don't have the power to delete articles, as I'm not an administrator. If you wish to contest the proposed deletion, you can remove the "proposed deletion" template message. 21:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconsequent nomination for deletion; look at Qlockwork or Fanurio

Hi there, I don't understand why the article about BusinessRunner TimeSheet has been deleted; I've used the same lay-out and template as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qlockwork http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanurio

Thanks in advance for your responce, Onnop (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your article was that it was unambiguous advertising and that there was no evidence of "notability," that is coverage in reliable sources. It was deleted by an administrator upon my recommendation, but if I had not recommended it, it would have eventually been nominated for deletion by someone else. Fanurio article had multiple independent sources, which yours does not. Qlockwork does not either and is not a good template to use. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins

You expressed interest in your discussion with Risker. I've just posted a new draft in WT:ADMIN and your input would be interesting. All comments are welcome as I'm trying to see where broad consensus lies.  Roger Davies talk 13:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm glad the discussion on the CC PD talk page is finally finding down. This has been an awful case, with loads of bickering, baiting, and backbiting, much of it directed at a handful of people (WMC and Lar came in for the brunt of it).

I posted my response just seconds before I saw yr note above, as it happens. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also glad the case is ending. Re the two editors you mention, I see no evidence of improvement in the attitude of either. The difference is that one of them has been severely sanctioned, the other not at all. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

I would send you one, but you don't seem to have it enabled. Could you please send me an email? Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GJP

No, you're misreading the situation. The "legal threats" were made in edits that were deleted. It's a pretty nasty situation - he and M4th were subject to serious harassment off-wiki. That part is easily established. The issue of who was behind it, that's less clear. But GJP made a statement in relation to the people he believes to have been behind it, and he also said something about legal action he has taken or may take, which Risker took as a violation of WP:NLT. So while he was treated horribly off-wiki, the block, while certainly adding insult to injury, certainly fell within the bounds of what is, broadly speaking, blockable per NLT.

If that was all there was to it, one could argue that Risker could have cut him a little more slack. But the truth is that we don't know what else has transpired. So while the block is unfortunate, I think that concluding it was a bad block or that GJP was treated unfairly requires someone to make unwarranted assumptions about unknown quantities. Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK. I just thought his blocking seemed excessive. However, when I showed support in that regard. I found myself running afoul of a User: Josette, and then Lar, and the whole thing seems to be a big mess. I had never encountered this User:Josette before. Has she been on the CC pages? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To answer your second question, see Special:Contributions/Josette. To answer the first - I think having a look at their user pages should answer your question. Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
GJP has now filed a case, so your reservations about NLT seems to have been misplaced. Email if you want the details William M. Connolley (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I surmised, thanks. @Guettarda: yes, that does answer my questions. Heh. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please contact me. My email is enabled. Minor4th 03:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, mail sent, though I'm not sure I want to get involved further in this. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

USRD project tagging

Thank you for taking an interest in NYC street articles. They don't really fall under the scope of WP:USRD or its subprojects. I've been removing the USRD banner from the articles since they fall under USST. Unless they are or were state highways, USRD really doesn't deal with them. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I had found a USRD banner on one street article, but I made the make of extrapolating that principle. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Doyers Street (Manhattan)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)