User talk:MrScorch6200/2013 December

December 2013 Conversations (post below please):

A page you started (Thesurvivor2299.com) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Thesurvivor2299.com, MrScorch6200!

Wikipedia editor EuroCarGT just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Make sure that the page is in par with WP:NWEB and add more sources.

To reply, leave a comment on EuroCarGT's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks, I'm gathering many sources from Associated Press and more and currently expanding the article. MrScorch6200 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thesurvivor2299.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolfenstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Just accidental

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Disco Singh

Hello MrScorch6200. I am just letting you know that I deleted Disco Singh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to provide some context here, you tagged the page under A7, but A7 does not apply to movies. However, it was eligible for deletion under other criteria, so I did so. Thanks for tagging it. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was originally going to tag it for A1 but I wasn't so sure. MrScorch6200 (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Nomination of Thesurvivor2299.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thesurvivor2299.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Яehevkor ✉ 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved

Jose Maria Villalta

Hi, I add some sources to the article about Jose Maria Villalta, the page is basically a translation of the article in spanish. This man is likely to become the next president of Costa Rica according to recent polls, so I couldn't believe that there was no articles in English about him. Most sources are in spanish, I hope that is not a problem. Thank you and I hope they don't delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauriciol1991 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

DRN close on Wallis Simpson

Sorry that I undid your close on that case. I was writing an opinion when you closed it. This is one of those cases where experienced users were clearly right, but were just beating the newcomer with acronyms without explaining what they really meant. (I can't really criticize them for that since I've been guilty of the same thing.) I thought an thorough explanation and quick close would fix the problem best and was writing that when we EC'ed. You'd inserted a nonstandard closing code — {{DRN talk bottom}} rather than {{DRN archive bottom}} — so I just undid, opined, and closed. Note that opining and then closing as resolved as being clearly against policy, as I did, is pretty audacious: you don't want to do it if there is any possibility that you might be wrong. Again, sorry to step on your close and thanks for helping at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; the incorrect template was just a minor mistake (I guess I'm used to putting {{talk archive}} in my monthly archives). Again, thanks for letting me know! See you around DR/N! --MrScorch6200 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

A beer for you!

Thanks! I'll see you around there! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for welcoming me! Vinnyboy08 (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Acrostic

Hello there. I wanted to let you know that, on your revert to Acrostic, you appeared to have reverted to a revision that was also vandalism. I've assumed good faith and reverted it for now. If you think that was a mistake, continue the discussion. Thank you! K6ka (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was just a mistake when using Huggle. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

DRN Karna close

With the DRN having reached no consensus, would I then be allowed to to revert the controversial changes? I am afraid if I do so, I will be hit with a warning for edit warring or something. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with the actual article's content and do not know if you are speaking of the disputed content; can you supply a diff as to which edit you are considering reverting? --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Here is [1] (hopefully that links correctly). This is the version prior to the disputed change (the massive removal of over 40,000 character of content). Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were you I wouldn't revert any disputed content because it can constitute as an edit war; rather you should try an RfC. You could try another DR/N case, since there was very little participation in the first, however I don't recommend it. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the other two users didn't even try and discuss it, or even wait for the DR/N to finish; they kept on editing. Isn't that edit warring? I've gone the RFC route with little gain. I'm getting tired of doing all these things to resolve this conflict, while the other party continues to make whatever changes they want to make. They are very reluctant to discuss their changes, as evidenced by their comments on the talk page. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You should try and strike up a discussion on a talk page again before you go to someplace like formal mediation. It is a bit unsettling that the other editors are not actively engaging in a discussion to resolve this. I left a {{talkback}} message on Abecedare's talk for you already (in response to your talk page post on Karna). Like I said earlier, another DR/N may be successful if there is an adequate amount of participation. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 00:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

MrScorch6200, just wondering if you have read the talk page discussion at Cutting short and Sources because I am not sure how you reached the conclusion that "other editors are not actively engaging in a discussion to resolve this." ? I have also summarized my thoughts on the issue at the DRN page and further clarified them in the discussion section on that page. Of course if you or Pinkfloyd have any new issue to discuss or point to raise, I'll be happy to respond, but barring that I don't see how another repetition of the very same points would be helpful in resolving this case of IDHT. Let me know if you have any specific questions for me. Cheers.

PS: When leaving a talkbalk message, please remember to link to, or at least indicate, where the discussion is taking place. Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just my point, both the discussions at Cutting short and Sources are almost three weeks old. Also, the DR/N was up for discussion for two weeks with little participation. Remember that I said active. I do hope that you three can resolve the dispute. I am just trying to point Pinkfloyd11 in the direction of a resolution/compromise. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved

DRN

Hi MrScorch, If you have any time and/or inclination there are two cases that are ready to go but are in need of a volunteer to open the discussion. Tin Box Macedonians. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Thesurvivor2299.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thesurvivor2299.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesurvivor2299.com (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Sandstein  14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder (moved)

Moved from user talk:Niemti

(talk page stalker) Hey Niemti, I just want to remind you to please stay civil and keep your edit warring to a minimum. A few admins above and elsewhere also mentioned this, but you seemed to just shrug it off. I know that you've seen each of those links before, but do you actually understand them? The "Jesus Christ", all caps, and the "learn2read and learn2hear", etc., comments need to stop. Other editors seem to be frustrated and upset by your way of communication; you really should try to communicate and collaborate to solve issues in a more formal, calm manner. A lot of disputes that you are involved in are turned into arguments because of comments from you.

Consider this an informal warning, and remember that incivility can and will be dealt with by means of an RFC, block, etc,. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• This has been discussed at length above and elsewhere; I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by piling on more of the same old "Oh, Niemti, please play nice!". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Niemti. I am not sure what was the reason for this warning by MrScorch6200, because diff above was dated December 6 (two weeks prior to the warning), and the matter is currently under consideration by Arbcom [2]. However, I would recommend you two things: (a) do not comment anything on arbitration pages because drafting arbitrator believes you are not a part of the case [3]; (b) do not make more than 1 revert per article per day for a while and avoid discussions. BTW, editing something like "internal troops" was probably a good idea because this subject area is not frequented by people who currently do not like you.My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Both of you (Salvidrim! and My very best wishes) have to remember that Niemti has been here since July 2006, and for being here for 7+ years he should know how to act and communicate. He also has a pretty thick block log on his previous account along with it being blocked indefinitely for "[being] Consistently incivil and disruptive, many breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF; second chances have had no effect". He was also blocked back in March on his current account for "Personal attacks or harassment: Consistent, incessant incivility, unreasonablness, [unreasonableness] personal attacks and inability to get along with anyone else". He has obviously had many, many chances to clean up his act. When the community starts noticing his incivility/disruptiveness etc., at this scale it needs to be dealt with accordingly. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

While Scorch here is a little late to the party, everything else he says is spot on. It's honestly insane Niemti has gotten away with it so long. Not sure how you can possibly rationalize scolding Scorch on this... Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)