User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2011/November


The Signpost: 31 October 2011

User:INeverSeed

How come you never warned the user before you reported him/her to WP:AIV? --Davejohnsan (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary for a vandalism-only account. Vandalism-only accounts can and frequently are blocked without warning. See WP:VOA. I've made it a practice of checking the contributions of new editors engaged in vandalism, and report VOAs to WP:AIV. Often, as in the case of the one I reported, their vandalism goes undetected. As a matter of fact, in checking your contribs I notice that you stumbled upon a particularly vicious VOA who inserted "porn star" vandalism to a BLP, and I'm reporting that to AIV. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Noted, thank you for informing me on that. I was under the impression that there had to be at least one warning before going to AIV. --Davejohnsan (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is something we have to do with IPs. There are no "vandalism-only IPs," unfortunately. But when a user goes to multiple articles and vandalizes them, and that's all he or she does, there is little hope that he or she will become a constructive user all of a sudden. INeverSeed and that other account have just been indefinitely blocked, as is the practice in such situations. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that would explain my source of confusion! Thank for you clearing this up for me; I'll be sure to keep it in mind for future reference. And sorry if I came off as an ass at the beginning. --Davejohnsan (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no problem at all. It is a common misconception, and I only noticed a few months ago that we can get VOAs blocked on no notice. Frankly I noticed it because I saw a "vandalism only account" check-off box in Twinkle. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey saw you are working on internet culture, too. Very cool... I just learned about the project and it's pretty cool.

ReginaldTQ (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why thanks! You're very kind. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Your TfD of Template:User burp

Please be aware that userboxes are supposed to be nominated at MfD, not TfD, regardless of namespace. I have thus NAC'd your nomination. I have made a procedural nomination at MfD for you. --NYKevin @805, i.e. 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much appreciated. Sorry for my ignorance on that. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent CSDs of schools

Hey, ScottyBerg, I just wanted to let you know that I've removed some CSD tags that you put on new articles. You marked them under A7, but they were both articles about schools, and A7 explicitly excludes schools. I see that you've been around a lot longer than I have, so I wanted to let you know and check to make sure there wasn't any reason that you flagged them that I didn't know about. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, if A7 excludes schools then you're right. Didn't notice that. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It does indeed. I remember seeing that once but had totally forgotten. Thanks for reminding, as the CSD would have gone nowhere. I've PROD'd instead. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) And no worries about the talk page thing, I just find it easier to keep track of conversations this way. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
We can all use reminding on basic stuff from time to time. Note the section above this one. Wikipedia can be a mite complex, even for those of use who have been around for a year or two. One of these days I'll write an essay on that point. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I do it for You!

I'm removing my self NikoTes3, because Wikipedia well not let me Pubisl my work on Resonantrolysis!

Nikola. Xg10.0433P_NT~ ~^ --NikoTes3 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As Malik Shabazz explained to you, you can release your definition into the public domain so that it can be used on Wikipedia. However, an article consisting entirely of your definition of Resonantrolysis (a concept I can locate only on your website), was deleted for valid reasons. Constantly re-creating it is not a good idea. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you can't find that word any where else? NikoTes3

Why you can't find that word any where else is because I created it and was copyrighted on APR 2011 with the copyright Office in DC. word {Resonantrolysis}..........--NikoTes3 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, your account may undergo some "Resonantrolysis" of its own. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC) ‎

Resonantrolysis

Just deleted it for the third time, and I'm about to salt it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, he had me believing him for a while. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Er... your second "warning" was related to an edit done before the first. So I assume you realize that it was not necessary and have also gaven the other editor a "warning" since he actually made two malicious edits to my page. Cptnono (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz

Please keep taps on that page, I think alot of people are trying to censor some bits . Im just trying to make the page more detailed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeone (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Ive reason to believe that the other editor is in fact, the man him self.So clearly he has a vested interest in controling the page --Timeone (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Article Deletion Nominations

Hello, I am currently trying to find more sources to complete the articles I have started. Are articles on people affiliated with a school in violation with the General notability guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavinciRed (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Often. You may want to read through WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy WHAT? It sure ain't happy for me!

Happy Thanksgiving Tony the Marine (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks, Tony. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

NYPD Corruption and the destruction of the People's Library

Hi Scot,

I understand that in the heat of the moment I did sound biased, and I just cannot not help it. I have also contributed to many articles with another id. I've had all my contributions improved by other users, witch is a great thing about wikipedia. Nevertheless, deleting historical facts does not improve the bias, it adds the bias of ignorance that is only favorable to oppressive institutions.

The destruction of the People's Library may be recent history but it is our history nonetheless and its relevance is even greater because the implications are so far reaching. We are here as individuals who dedicate a chunk of our free time to contribute to free flow of information on Wikipedia, we have a moral obligation to publish such facts. To deny the destruction of the Library would be the same as to have an article about Nazi Germany that did not mention concentration and extermination camps. This may seem biased but it should be seen as mere respect to historic fact. (Style should reflect that, of course.)

We must all feel spiritually connected to independent librarians had volunteered their time to catalog the books from the library before it was destroyed. If we omit this information we would be acting in a bias pro-disinformation, (pro-financial-fascism, if I may speak my mind.) This cannot be our policy.

I don't have the time right now to submit a fully revised article that will meet wiki standards, but I trust the clarity and the ethics of our other contributors, including yourself. I have compiled some material about the incident, with references. Here it goes. If you have the time, please consider revising and post, or else I will post it myself, once I have a chance to revise somehow, in a few days.

I truly appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a reliable source. Thank you.

DRAFT TEXT>

One complaint resonated with the online bystanders almost more than anything else: the treatment inflicted on the protest movement’s library. Literary star Salman Rushdie posted on Twitter: "Nazis destroyed books to "purify" German culture. Bigots do it in the name of God , or Alah. What's Bloomberg's excuse WHat's Bloomberg's excuse? "Higiene"?" [1]

The destruction of the People's Lbrary by the NYPD, under unconstitutional orders of Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief of Police is perhaps the darkest moment in the history of the Department. All other accusations of corruption and unjustified use of force against unarmed civilians may be somehow dismissed with elaborate arguments, but the destruction of books is an image that will remain unchallenged. The immediate references are Nazi Germany and radical Islam. When cops trash over 5600 books in an area that was blocked from the media and raided in the middle of the night, that is when we can be certain that these are not "good cops". Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).


These are unquestionable facts that are shaping our history. Please improve style and wikify where necessary.

Thank you. Looking forward to developing this conversation.

Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous9912345 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate much your concern. Let's see what we can do. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scotty, thanks for your attention. I haven't been able to afford enough time to work on this, but I just undid a complete delete of the section on Corruption in the NYPD. I understand that the text needs to be improved and there were editors working on improving it. These are facts that we all know are true. Of course the original authors are biased, there is a political intention in registering a historical moment; but to ignore it is also biased, it's the same bias that the mainstream media has been a victm of. Accepting the cold facts forces one to take sides, as contributors to the encyclopedia sometimes we need to take sides, we must take sides with the truth, we must take sides in not ignoring facts that are so important from an ethic point of view. Be Well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous9912345 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ops:

Anonymous9912345 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion

Scotty, could you take a look at: Talk:List of Puerto Ricans#Submitted for evaluation and give an opinion in regard to the notability of "Julio M. Fuentes". I'm not sure if he can be considered notable or not and that is why I would appreciate it if you check it out and give your opinion. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. If only all requests were so easy to fulfill. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I know what you mean. Thanks. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

  1. ^ [[1]]