User talk:Scottywong/Archive 1

Archive 1

Speedy Deletion of List Of The Shak Episodes

I have been very patient with this issue and you agree that it is no longer a canidate so could you please delete the warning box above the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt-tastic (talk • contribs) 06:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt-tastic, the article has not been listed for speedy deletion. It has been nominated for deletion and its fate is currently being discussed by Wikipedia editors. Until the AfD is closed, the warning box on the article cannot be removed. It will be removed by the admin who closes the AfD. SnottyWong talk 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pit Bull GA review

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to review the Pit Bull article and provide constructive comments. Astro$01 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't Hang

Since one editor said "Delete except the charting ones", and they'd all charted, I had to interpret that as a keep. This tipped the balance over in combination with the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. I was very aware that if we had deleted articles for songs which charted in the Top 10 Billboard, then they would inevitably be re-created, and probably in a worse state than the existing articles. It is, as I said, an editorial decision whether to redirect the articles to their parent albums. However, I altered the AfD close to reflect the fact that it was a split consensus. If you wish to appeal this at WP:DRV, please feel free. Black Kite 12:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review: "Existence"

First, you don't need to reference plot section, see Pilot (30 Rock) for an example. Second, the whole production section was referenced by the audio commentary which is a reliable source and common when referencing production information. You have given one of the worst reviews possibly, not because you did not pass it, but because you did not give a "good" review. Therefor either you review it again or you get someone else to do it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing in another reviewer, who will give a thourough review... okay? --TIAYN (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but such reviews as this should no be possible. I'm removing your edit on the GA nomination page. --TIAYN (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is obviously not GA status. If you're looking for comments on how to improve it, get a peer review. Otherwise, it's not worth the time of a GA reviewer to thoroughly review the article. Show me another GA article that has 3 total references, with the main reference (used for 95% of the article) being an audio commentary from a DVD movie. Feel free to apply for a reassessment if you feel it's necessary. I would work on getting some real references in there in the meantime.

Also, please don't delete the cleanup tag on the article without discussing why you don't think it should be there on the talk page. SnottyWong talk 16:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Pilot (30 Rock) has 38 references. Existence (The X-Files) has three. I don't think you should be using that article as a comparison. If you have issues with my review, add a comment to the review and apply for a reassessment. Don't delete it. SnottyWong talk 16:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is their a guideline out which is against use of three references?, if soo please show me! This one had only five and it still passed. Even if their are few references, you can't just not pass it!! You can't just pass an article because you believe is should be more references. The article only needs to be referenced, and have over one reference. --TIAYN (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My argument is not solely that you don't have enough references, it's also that your references are poor quality. Can you find a transcript of the audio commentary on the DVD? Otherwise, who is actually going to buy the DVD and listen to the audio commentary to verify that your article is accurate? Second, your reference on the Nielsen rating is from an X-files fan site, not a reliable source. Third, your last reference has a link that doesn't point directly to the data you're referencing. I wouldn't even rate this article as B-status. Furthermore, I'm tempted to apply for a reassessment of Without (The X-Files), as I wouldn't have passed that one either. SnottyWong talk 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

First, an audio commentary is commonly used in these articles. So live with it.

Second, your right. The Nielsen ratings are referenced by a fansite, but the site has not been proven faulse by any reliable sources. In season 1-7 articles, most of the articles are commonly referenced by a book, such as Things: The Official Guide to the X-Files Volume 6.. The Problem being that their does not exist such a book for season 8-9. Being that the sites nielsen data has not been proven faulse or inaccurate by the reliable sources. It should and is a reliable source.

Third, the source has been used that way on a toons of other articles. And it is impossible to give a direct link to the source. This has been used on such articles as "Adrift" and "Two Fathers". To find the page, follow the instructions found on the reference!

--TIAYN (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to duplicate everything you post on my talk page on the article's talk page, then why don't we just have the discussion on the article talk page, ok? SnottyWong talk 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but remove the verify banner until the discussion is finished --TIAYN (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. The cleanup tag is marking this article as being in need of references (which it obviously is). Once you can make an argument that it is largely referenced (using high-quality references, and not using WP:OSE as your justification for not referencing certain sections), then the cleanup tag can come down. SnottyWong talk 16:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything is referenced! Your problem is that their are not enough references, but that is a whole other discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave me alone... --TIAYN (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Head's up

Hello, I recently decided to take on your GA Nomination of CobraNet. Review is likely: Today or tomorrow. Just to let you know. --MWOAP (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the heads up. SnottyWong talk 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

how was paperback a hoax?

Did you try the program? Because it works, wait never mind I'm to apathetic to bother this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warll (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Wait, you really did think it didn't work? The program works, I wouldn't have made an article for it if it didn't. You seriously think that a fax is the the upper level of scanning and printing capabilities? Theres a reason why the author recommended that you use a scanner that can scan at three times the DPI you printed I on. Are you really this computer illiterate? Not to mention that this means to delete articles without proper research. You know that image that was in the article? That was compressed copy of the file I scanned and recompiled of the program's binary. Compressed because the original was 300MB. You can try it yourself, but that would be too much work wouldn't it when you could just delete away, right? Oh and I sure hope you do not expect cilicty now that you have confessed to destroying work based solely off of your whim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.171.197 (talk • contribs)

Warll, nice try. Did you forget the part about how the "official website" of the program lists the program as a joke? Even in the unlikely event that the program actually does exist and function, it still doesn't come anywhere close to satisfying WP:GNG or WP:SOFTWARE. Therefore, it was either a hoax or it was a self-serving advertisement for a non-notable software product. In either case, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. SnottyWong talk 12:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled across the speedy deletion page as I was about to create (re-create?) the page myself.

The comment at the beginning of the official page was self-deprecating humor. (eg. Here is my latest software, sorry it's such a joke) The combative tone of the original editor not withstanding, The program does exist and works, it's pretty neat. If you want I can post screen shots (Might even be useful for the article in question).

I disagree with the arguments about this software being non-notable. All just my humble opinion :) Feel free to do what you will.

Thanks! 74.125.59.73 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Produce a few independent, reliable, verifiable sources that assert the notability of your software and I won't have any argument with someone recreating this page. SnottyWong talk 18:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of original article for Anthony Shaw

Hello you have just REVERSED the restoration of a vandalized page for Anthony Shaw that was vandalized on 20 November 2009 but NOT picked up by Wikipedia. Please can you review the ORIGINAL article and my recent edit to confirm that I was reversing the damaged caused on that date. In short what happened was a NON-FAMOUS UK blogger with a similar name HIJACKED the page on that date replacing an article on the director with an article about himself. I am also UK based and believe me the UK blogger is NOT famous here. He may be famous to a few friends and a select few thousand people (spam bots?) who are sad enough to follow him on Twitter the UK blogger doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article as he has done nothing of note, however the person who's page he hijacked is actually famous. So please review and revert your own edit as you've just restored the damage. Many thanks!

Your reversion was deleted because you accidentally deleted the AfD template on the page when you were restoring the non-vandalized version of the article. Only admins should remove AfD templates. In any case, upon further examination, it appears that your edits were made in good faith, and that the AfD nomination for this article was never completed. I have reverted to the non-vandalized version of the article, and finished the AfD nomination for the article. Thanks for heads-up, and sorry for the confusion. SnottyWong talk 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you. Yes I realized my mistake about the AfD template. Appreciate the restore of that also as it needs to be reviewed. As an admin please can you ask for this page to be locked or watched for now as I have a feeling that the NON-FAMOUS guy will attempt to damage Wikipedia again, thus best to ensure he can't for now whilst Google etc re-index the page. Thank you. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Anon

I'm not an admin, but I'll watch the page until the AfD is completed. SnottyWong talk 13:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, should be an admin as your doing a good job ;-) Have a great weekend! Many thanks 212.183.140.33 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenji Yamamoto (Composer/arranger) nominated for deletion

How is it decided whether or not a song is notable? I assumed since Kenji Yamamoto has composed or arranged such a large number of songs (most of which I haven't gotten around to translating from the Japanese Wikipedia page), he would be considered notable enough. I mean, Kenji Yamamoto (the Nintendo composer) has only 17 works on his page, while this Kenji Yamamoto can have about seven times that (if I add the rest of his work). Also, what does "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" mean? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear on its policies about the notability of many different subjects, including songs and composers. If you're looking for the notability of a song, take a look at WP:NSONGS. The more relevant criteria for this situation, however, is WP:COMPOSER and, to a lesser extent, WP:CREATIVE. Also, regarding your question about self-published sources: self-published sources are ok for sourcing information about a topic, however, an article must have at least a few citations from independent, verifiable, reliable sources in order to establish notability. Self-published or questionable sources cannot be used to establish notability. Take a look at the general notability guidelines. SnottyWong talk 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So, would adding links to website pages about him (like MusicBrainz) be a good idea to help show nobility? I'm having a hard time thinking of what websites are independent, verifiable, reliable sources. I know there's an interview with Kenji in a soundtrack booklet, but that probably doesn't count, huh? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good sources would be newspaper or magazine articles about Kenji, which were independently written by a disinterested party (i.e. not just a regurgitated press release or ad). SnottyWong talk 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Safe Climate Act AFD

I noticed that you said the article's notability appears temporary. That is a misconception. While our conception of what is notable might change over time, that same time does not have an effect on the bill or act. It's notability is determined based on media coverage in political impact. This might be easier to determine over time, but the actual notability won't have changed. In short, it is not temporary: it's either there, or it's not. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why my vote was a Weak Delete, because it was a judgement call. It's unlikely that anyone will remember or care about a failed bill in 50 years. Feel free to add your opinion to the AfD if you disagree with me. SnottyWong talk 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi Snottywong, I don't particularly appreciate being referred to inappropriately as a "suckpuppet" with a "master". Please keep your unsubstantiated comments to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingpearce (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Right. So you're just a new user who happened to stumble upon a random AfD and made that your first and only edit. I believe that. After all, there are tons of brand new users who dive right into AfD discussions right after they create their accounts. SnottyWong talk 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, I've been using Wikipedia for quite a while and the article in question was the first time I felt obliged to create an account and attempt to make some productive comments. Hence, I read into the AfD process and made my comments. I understand that I may still not completely understand the notability and crystal ball specifications, but wanted to try and contribute to the community. I hope, for Wikipedia's sake, that I quickly encounter more constructive and helpful people (in AfD's and other talk pages) and that I can continue to add my small voice to the din of those too quick to judge. --Sterlingpearce (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD G4 and TIHUS - The International Hindi-Urdu Script

G4 can only be used when the article was deleted as the result of an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion. It is not intended for use when a previous deletion was a speedy deletion or a prod. Please review Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4. In this case, I am unable to find third-party references online, but perhaps offline references may be available. It might be better to take the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion -- Eastmain (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't see that. That's wierd. So if an article is deleted from AfD and re-created, you can speedy delete it, but if an article is speedy deleted and recreated, you can't? Doesn't seem logical. SnottyWong talk 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern

Snottywong, I'm concerned by the spam tag that you added at User talk:Rbedrosian. This user appears to be an obvious academic, who creates some of the reliable sources which we use on Wikipedia. This is the kind of editor who should be nurtured and encouraged, not slapped with a warning template. Would you please consider reverting your spam template on their page? --Elonka 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Response on User talk:Rbedrosian. SnottyWong talk 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there as well, though I also strongly recommend reading (or re-reading) WP:BITE. I do appreciate that you're trying to help out with patrolling Recent Changes, but I think you jumped the gun a bit with this editor. Perhaps it might be better to work in some other areas of the project, than issuing warning templates? For example, there's lots that needs to be done at WP:CLEANUP. Or check some of the articles at Category:Articles that need to be wikified. There are plenty of articles there that either need minor edits, or just need someone to check to see if the {{wikify}} tag needs to be removed! Any help that you could offer there, would be greatly appreciated.  :) --Elonka 01:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Gymtops

I'm not promoting anything. Gymtops.com is a historical on the walkout shirts that fighters wear during any given event, thus my external link would be valid. It's probably about the same as when users post a listing of which fighters cam out to whichever song. I am aware that Wikipedia uses nofollow so it wouldn't matter in the searches, but my data is historical data on the fighter and can be used as a reference. So atleast I should be added to the reference section at most.

Thanks,

Jay

P.S.

Please do your research before you deem someones content not appropriate. Don't be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymtops (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gymtops, give me a break. First of all, your username is Gymtops, and the only contributions you've made are to add external links to gymtops.com (need I say more?). Second of all, gymtops.com is a website that apparently documents the clothing that athletes wear, and provides links to buy them from other (presumably affiliated) sites. I have done my research. Your content is inappropriate. I'm not biased. Please read WP:COI before continuing to add external links to various articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida, not a place to advertise your website, and your website is not an informational source by Wikipedia's standards. SnottyWong talk 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

about my article

the article i typed is from vikram publishers physics manual. and that book has full of correct information.what's wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanth338 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You added content at the very bottom of the article, below even the references and footnotes, and the content you added was irrelevant and out of context. Try adding relevant info into the body of the article. SnottyWong talk 12:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article status

Belated congratulations on good article status for CobraNet --Kvng (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad I was able to get it done before life got in the way and had me move 3000 miles away for a new job... Haven't been able to contribute much lately, but I'll probably be back eventually... SnottyWong talk 23:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Place Your Input

could you please place your input into the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendal Nagorcka, I am not telling you which way to sway,howver I would appreciate a expericenced editor like yourself providing a input to the case

Self-promotional articles

Hi Snottywong, I was just reminded that I wanted to do something about the X-parameters article, as it seems to be WP:SPIP, WP:OR, WP:COI and perhaps WP:NN (since only recently invented). So I was reading up on the necessary procedures only to discover you'd already tackled this one in December. From your talk-page it seems you take an interest in this sort of issue, so could you give your opinion on the acceptability of the article Abbotsford Virtual School? My attention was drawn to this when the propriator added his name to Hutchinson (surname). Thanks, --catslash (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names (2nd nomination)

SnottyWong – Thanks for your concern on this deletion. Two sets of thoughts follow:

• Your presumption that I didn’t read the AfD, article or sources before I made the close has been based on the idea that you knew what I was doing (or had been doing), prior to the close.

Also, we must consider that the history for the AfD shows that you posted a closing template, and then posted your decision a mere 7 minutes later. We can only assume that it took you 7 minutes to read the approximately 3000 words of opinions, look at all of the external links and sources provided in the opinions, interpret the consensus, and write your opinion. From this we can assume that you skimmed over the !votes, didn't look at any of the sources provided, and cobbled together a (fairly ridiculous) closing statement which you (thankfully) later struck through. Clearly, you knew which way you were going to close the AfD before you even started reading the !votes (and it's clear you weren't reading the AfD prior to posting the closing template, since you were editing a different article only 5 minutes before you posted the closing template).

— SnottyWong, Mike Cline talk page, 02:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this to be a pretty powerful skill on your part, even though you got it wrong.

• • For the most part, I review every AfD, every day, from the day its posted, until the day its closed. Admittedly, not every AfD is compelling reading, and a few get skimmed pretty fast. There are AfDs (such as this one) where I follow the daily line of reasoning fairly closely. I don’t choose to close a lot of AfDs but when I do close one, I am familiar with the discussion, article and sources. For the most part, the AfDs I close come from the Old AfD discussion list, as this one did. In other words, Afds that 1700+ admins haven’t chosen to close yet.

• • As for the idea that posting a closing template just 7 minutes before posting the closing templates indicates that I didn’t read the Afd isn’t very good logic. (I am surprised it took me 7 minutes to post the close.) I always post the closing template as step one of my closing routine merely to forestall edit conflicts while posting the close. It is merely a flag and is totally unrelated to any need for time to evaluate the close.

• • As for my editing an article 5 minutes before I closed this Afd (apparently the real clue that I didn’t read the Afd), the explanation is rather simple. I monitor an extensive watchlist on a second browser tab. When I noted a bit of vandalism on the Yellowstone article, I rolled it back.

• You have used the term Votes

Especially in the case that there were 9 delete votes and 5 keep votes, there ought to be a compelling explanation for why the Keep's reasonings were more sound than the Delete's.

• • AfDs are not votes. Plus it was fairly easy to evaluate the deletes since 4 of the nine were essentially: Per Savonneux (including yours), whose main point was that the subject was not based on reliable sources (refuted I believe by JohnWBarber). The other deletes (except Chris’s) dealt mainly with usefullness and silliness (not reasons for deletion). The Keeps on the otherhand, made the notability case and the case for sources (especially JohnWBarber). When you factor in the fact that the article was a Keep in a previous AfD, I believe the Keep decision was correct. AfD is not cleanup nor a place for a lot of subjective discussion about usefulness.

I know you do not agree with keeping this article, but that is not why I posted this. I just wanted to explain my routine. I will apologize for the frivolous comments made when first closing this AfD as they were inappropriate but will go unexplained any further.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. That article is completely ridiculous, but I really don't care enough about it to argue. SnottyWong talk 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about you at AN/I

Here [1] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

re Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cement in Africa

Snotty - You said: "Completely pointless and silly are not reasons for deletion." -- Shouldn't they be? in response to my Keep argument. Maybe you should try and get those reasons added to the list here: WP:DEL#Reasons. Then they could legitimately be used as a deletion arguments.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I figured those reasons would already be covered by WP:COMMONSENSE. SnottyWong talk 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in the Food Industry

You commented on a similar AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixing in Consumer Products. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

You like being a bit of a jerk don't you? I am going to tell the teacher on you if you don't delete her first.--Milowent (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

just so you know... most people at article rescue squad are good faith editors who are ready to be honest about an article's potential... you shouldn't be surprised that the userbox has pissed some people off... maybe it will be kept... but this box will create drama... expect people to renominate it over and over again or to lose trust in you or to bring up your hostile attitude at other discussions... some of that criticism towards you will be fair and some of it won't (as seen above)... but you can make it all go away if you found a wording that were a little more fair Arskwad (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just expressing my opinion. If people don't like it, that's their problem. They can refer to another one of my userboxes, which directs them to WP:DGAF. SnottyWong talk 16:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

if people don't like it they will make it your problem... just remember that there are consequences for every opinion expressed here and the more hostile the opinion the more hostile the consequences... i personally don't care that much either but don't be surprised at how much drama this createsArskwad (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm expressing my opinion, and I don't think anyone has the right to tell me to not express my opinion. If anyone would like to express their opinions about my opinion, then I welcome that and I won't attempt to restrict them (unless, of course, expressing their opinion involves reverting 20 of my !votes on recent AfD's). SnottyWong talk 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Taking the actions you described in User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire is disruptive editing. As such, I've rolled back all of them, even the !vote for keeping Upstate New York, because of your expressed bad faith. Were I not already involved with you on one discussion, I would have already blocked you for disruptive editing. I'm going to be starting an ANI thread for future guidance, and until that's resolved, you are expected to contribute to that thread, rather than attempting to !vote in any more AfD's of any articles flagged for rescue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I will be starting a discussion to report abuse of your rollback rights. I look forward to the discussions. The fact that I made a Keep vote on Upstate New York is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that my editing is neither disruptive nor in bad faith. I hope you will get past your emotional reaction and undo whatever rollbacks you have already performed. SnottyWong talk 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, JClemens, I wasn't a fan of that userbox either but rollback probably wasn't the right response. Potentially bad faith comments should be struck through using the <del> </del> code so that they're appropriately marked but still available for editors to make up their own minds. Visiting Snottywong's talk page first and asking him to review his conduct prior to taking action might also have been a polite step, especially seeing as his history shows he's receptive to constructive criticism. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Had it been only one or two discussions, Dust, I would entirely agree. 20? Not something I'm going to do by hand. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to cross-complain [[2]] here. The fact that you !voted keep on Upstate New York simply demonstrates that you're not stupid: that's such a blindingly obvious keep that your voting in any other manner would have called your intelligence into question. Oh... and I don't have rollback. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As a sysop you have rollback rights. The sysop rights group is inclusive of the rollback rights group. Hence the "rollback" button next to diffs which produces the "Reverted to" edit summary text.- DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I was trying to save him from looking kinda silly in suggesting that they be removed. Didn't appear to work, but I gave him the opportunity. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the ARS I feel I should say I really like your infobox. I may have to copy it :) Verbal chat 07:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free! SnottyWong talk 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens

Snottywong, The way Jclemens is reacting and behaving is uncharacteristic and I'm concerned that some external factor is affecting them I have seen this kind of thing before where the lynchmob mentality at ANI gets completely out of hand and we loose a valuable contributor. I just wanted to let you know that the rollback will be reversed and DRV will reverse any keep closes and relist if the discussions have been tainted by this event but this trully isn't the way that Jclemens usually behaves and we owe it to an experienced editor not to let the ANI spiral completely out of control. I hope you can understand this and be patient about giving Jclemens space to understand themselves that they are in the wrong and fix it themselves. I realise as the wronged party that you don't have to accept that but I wanted to explain why I was asking for calm and assure you that this will be fixed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, I appreciate the comments. However, your theory about why Jclemens is acting the way he is is unsubstantiated and is just a theory. If Jclemens admits that he is having personal problems that are affecting his judgement, then I will take his word for it and lay off. However, my complaints at ANI were absolutely warranted and necessary, and Jclemens is the one causing the argument to spiral out of control by not admitting that he has done something wrong. Even now he continues to argue that he was correct. A simple admission of guilt would end the whole thing, but until that happens it's going to continue to escalate. And it should, because it's not serving WP's interests to have an admin who is willing to abuse his tools, and then not admit wrongdoing despite the fact that dozens of people have told him what he did was wrong (and zero people agreed with his actions). Again, if Jclemens is having personal problems, then let him tell us so. Otherwise, it's just a wild assumption. SnottyWong talk 16:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested reword of userbox?

"subjecting them to stringent criticism." - I think perhaps a reword to "critical review" or "stringent review" would be a good idea? Criticism isn't always warranted, but review is. What do you think? Exxolon (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Redlink notifications

You are adding redlink notifications that go nowhere, this is the link you should be adding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered that if you can't format a notification that you may be over stepping your safe zone Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Silly template was screwing up the links. I've corrected them. SnottyWong talk 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature

There seems to be something awry with your signature. It's got unsubst'ed #if statements and (perhaps as a result) it's over 255 characters. –xeno^talk 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call. It appears I was incorrectly subst'ing the {{fontcolor}} template. I've corrected it. Thanks for the message. SnottyWong talk 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This may help. Just ensure that your signature (after expansion of any templates you might substitute) is 255 characters or less. –xeno^talk 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Actually, it appears that the "subst" is getting added automatically into any templates I use in my signature. I just took the "subst" out, and saved it, but it is still in there. It appears WP doesn't want me to use un-subst'ed templates in my signature. Looks like it's time for a new signature. I'll mess with it. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, what does the safesubst thing do? I'm not familiar with it. SnottyWong talk 17:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Safesubst allows the template to be conveniently substed, or transcluded, and look the same either way. My change should allow you to use the subst the color template without leaving behind if statements. However, even after substing, your signature might be too long. –xeno^talk 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, that definitely got rid of the unsubst'ed #if statements, but it was still over 255 characters when it got expanded. I recreated it without using the fontcolor template, and managed to get it to exactly 255 characters by nesting the span statements. Thanks for the help! Check it out: SnottyWong talk 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Thank you for your swift attention to this. –xeno^talk 17:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your RfC close

Unlike a Wikiquette alert and other forms of dispute resolution, a nominator can't withdraw an RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. The procedural point aside, you asked me to ask Jclemens some questions, I just start to do so, then you close the RfC. What's up with that? Give me some time/room to maneuver. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was looking around for instructions on closing an RfC but couldn't find them for some reason. I feel that the RfC has taken its course, but if you have some other questions to ask, then go for it. SnottyWong talk 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait to support the closing of the RfC until your questions have been asked and answered. SnottyWong talk 13:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Temples and buildings

Just to clarify where my personal opinion on the difference between Masonic buildings and Masonic temples comes from. It's very rare in England and Scotland to call the building itself a temple. That's a term always reserved for the room inside the building that meetings take place within. As with so much else in Freemasonry, there is no universal approach. Also in the UK most masonic buildings/ lodges aren't particularly distinctive, hence they have no specific notability. Several are old church buildings, many are purpose built fairly generic 60s and 70s constructions. Many of the older ones are just a discreet building in the street, with little in the way of external identification.

Personally I would describe my approach as exclusionist, I really have to see value in an entry, hence my position on this. Still, closing Admin will count up the votes and the majority will win it.

ALR (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I still don't see the case for deletion though. If the title is technically incorrect, change it. If the article contains non-notable buildings, then clarify the inclusion criteria and delete them. I think this is the most arguing I've ever done in favor of keeping an article! Thanks for keeping the discussion civil. SnottyWong talk 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a badly worded AfD.

I can understand the frustration though. The same article has spawned in a number of places in an effort to retain it which leaves me uncomfortable about motivation to improve it if it remains. It looks to me as if it'll end up retained and then very little will happen to it as those who actually understand the subject have no appetite to populate it.

That said I'm no fan of list articles, the guidance is so loose around them that they end up as trivia repositories. No Knowledge Management specialist sees them as a valuable way of indexing information in a professional manner, but tradition dressed up as consensus dominates any policy or guidance page so it's not worth trying to apply any discipline to how Wikipedia considers KM.

ALR (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Voyager I vandalism

Hello. Sorry, my edits were not intended to be vandalism. I just felt confused while reading the article and the way the decimal separator seemed to be inconsistent, sometimes commas, sometimes dots. From where I'm from we use commas for speeds and decimals and dots for separating three-digits. But now I see it seems other places are opposite. 188.83.27.204 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Some of the decimal/comma changes you made were within templates, which are set up only for one way or another, so they were broken. Since you are editing from an IP (as opposed to a logged in user), I assumed you were trying to break them intentionally (since that kind of vandalism happens more than you'd think). See Wikipedia:MOS#Large_numbers for more information on Wikipedia's standards with regard to this issue. SnottyWong communicate 22:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your userbox

Hi. I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire as keep; but in the close I suggest that you should make the conciliatory gesture of renaming it to something less inflammatory. Please do that - these WP:BATTLEs are a terrible waste of time and energy and goodwill. How about RescueCheck? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can not help but wonder

if there is a relationship between your understanding of evolution and your childless status? Or is it just coincidence that those two boxes are side-by-side? Curious in Dixon aka Carptrash (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I'm an evolved person, or the other way around? I can't tell. I didn't purposely put them next to each other, but it was probably subconscious because I can certainly see a link between the two. Fully understanding evolution means understanding that evolution has different phases, with biological evolution (i.e. evolution based on random DNA mutations and survival of the fittest) being only one phase out of many, and one which I believe is currently almost completely devoid of all human evolutionary influence, as humans have all but taken the process of evolution into our own hands. SnottyWong ^gab 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your answer is actually much deeper than the intent of my question. I see stuff, something jumps into my mind and I blurt it out. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WT:DGAF

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at WT:DGAF, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You got the higher level warning because of the profanity. Stay cool, and don't insult trolls. No good ever comes from it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Relax. Just having some fun. It's not like it was a dispute over content on a real article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 16:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm relaxed. I don't think the rules are different for content than they are for project space. Besides, if I was that guy, I would have felt personally attacked by your remark. You may be "having fun," but given what prompted him to make his statement, and how he made it, he clearly is not having fun and is not likely to interpret your remark in a "fun" manner. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Please be careful with BLPPRODs. Recall that if there is a source in the article, BLPPROD is not to be used. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Where are the source? The external links? Since when do external links count as sources? SnottyWong ^spout 03:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your userbox

I have removed your unnecessary post from my talk page, as I had already answered Unomi and its only purpose seemed to be to stir up again an issue which has been settled. Please do not replace it. The objectors to your userbox took it as a sign that you wished to make Wikipedia a battleground - do not go out of your way to prove them right. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD

FYI -- I've improved the article at the AfD here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Arad Challenger

This tournament takes place this week in Romania. It does not have an official website yet. I am editing on Wikipedia for some 3 years. I saw you are a deletionist. Well I guess my article about Arad Challenger will be erased since no official website. I guess the fact that I am watching it on TV does not count, nor the info on www.atpworldtour.com. I simply do not understand this attitude from some of the users on Wiki... Cheers! Gabinho (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have been editing on Wikipedia for 3 years, then surely you must be familiar with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. If the subject of your article does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, then it does not belong on Wikipedia. If it's a future event that is likely to have significant coverage in the future, but doesn't yet, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The fact that you're watching it on TV does not count, nor does the info on www.atpworldtour.com, because it is a primary source. You don't need to understand my attitude, you need to understand WP policies. In particular, I'd recommend WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CHILL. SnottyWong ^chatter 21:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. I will search secondary reliable sources. Thanks for the advices although some are ironic. Gabinho (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined speedy

I have declined your A7 nomination of Administrative regions of Kanpur, as it was not an eligible topic for an A7 speedy deletion. The article could use some improvement, but please do try to be careful to make sure an article is eligible before nominating it for speedy deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC).

Fair enough, thanks. I've prodded the article instead. SnottyWong ^communicate 21:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (United Arab Emirates)

Now deleted, the copyvio nomination only covered part of the article, but some of it looked like it was not a copy. SO at first I only removed pieces of text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)