User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2010/May

Question

You have been doing this [1] on a bunch of articles, what does it mean? mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been going through the 71 unassessed Wikiproject Blogging articles and assessing them, according to the project rating scale. Feel free to participate in this effort if you are interested. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok cool, i was wondering what it was about :) how would i get the rating up? mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really a question of improving the articles, lengthening, making them better. Assessment scales for blogging articles are listed here [2]. The blogging project is not very active so your participating would certainly be welcome. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I`ll give it a go, got a link to the tags? Once i`m done another article i`ll give it a whirl :) mark nutley (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Say, that would really be great, thanks. There's no link to the tags. What I do is to go to article that have tags and then I replicate. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

CC Essay

Interesting read. Agree about the battlefield nature, and honestly laugh when people on both sides try to pretend it's not there. Your suggestion is draconian, but I don't know if there's any good answer. One idea I've seen is to topic ban all current, active participants, but I really think that would backfire. Parts of your idea are interesting, especially the forced participation, but that would be tough to enforce. Well thought-out read! Ravensfire (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you! You're very kind. I'm not sure about topic banning, though, as that might get rid of valued contributors. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think of it more as Dudgeons and Dwagons. You shouldn't diss or underestimate AGF and NPA, both are essential and sensible. Of course, think in terms of diplomacy rather than naive idealism. It's very much an area of sincerely held perceptions, and Wikipedia inevitably reflects a wider cultural conflict. At its best these sort of proxy battles can end up with well balanced articles on contentious areas. From my viewpoint, that comes from the longstanding policies in Wikipedia which define balance as giving due weight to majority expert views, in particular to the scientific consensus rather than to fringe views. Inevitably, these policies are also the subject of battling between various viewpoints, but with luck and goodwill Wikipedia will improve its coverage of such topics.

While you're right about it being scary, and it can get pretty heavy, it's wrong to think that "The two sides in the debate hate each other". Some may, but in my opinion it's better to disagree and assume the opposition is mistaken, or even a bit deluded, while still wishing them well and hoping that they'll recover ;-) There's always hope that the light of reason will dawn on all, and the battles will turn out to have just been a ghastly misunderstanding. On that rather Douglas Adamsish sentiment, I leave you. Thanks for all the thoughts, dave souza, talk 20:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much, Dave. You know. I think you're right about the "hate" language. I am definitely going to rephrase it. However, I do sense that there is a strong personal antagonism involving some of the players in this long-running drama. In any business situation or negotiation, the failure to assume good faith on the part of the other side is a killer. Clearly you can see the businessman in whomever dreamed up the "AGF" policy, as without that all order breaks down. I think you have something of a breakdown in some of the CC articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning

don't disrupt to prove a WP:POINT [3], thankyou Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand this warning. I pushed the rollback button by accident and I immediately apologized! ScottyBerg (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason I did not assume good faith and went straight for a low level warning was what appeared to be a sarcastic edit summary. If I have misinterpreted your edit summary I simply request that you are more careful. Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarcastic? I honestly don't understand how you could have construed sarcasm out of that. I was apologizing emphatically, and yes, I will definitely be more careful! I was mortified and I reverted immediately.

As you can see from my essay, to which you've just commented, I'm trying in good faith to wrap my arms around this whole CC controversy, and I'm not one of the ordinary warrior types. So I really don't see how anyone could think I would deliberately revert a comment and that I then rolled it back with a sarcastic edit summary. I'm very discouraged, I have to tell you, by this, not so much by your warning but by the general climate involved. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. It is just when I saw TERRIBLY SORRY in caps it made it look very odd. The phrase "terribly sorry" can have a ring of insincerity to it. Added that you put in in caps it looked a bit pointy. If it wasn't then I am sorry. I am also concerned about the CC area and despite my current defence of WMC against Lar I am not nearly so partisan as it seems. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to show up here and explain it was "deep breath" time, as it's clear that Scotty just misclicked and Polargeo may be having a MASTADONS issue here. Polargeo - AGF! ScottyBerg - you know tensions are high. You can see how if someone were ABFing you, they could see your removal of my discussion of how removal of content wasn't vandalism as a totally sketchy POINT violation - but let's not ABF. Now, let's all be friends. There's a cup of tea template somewhere, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, and by the way I really should apologize to you, Hipocrite, for my goof. I've been watching the Lar debate very carefully, though I didn't mention it specifically in my essay, as it is an example of how hard it is to administer that area and how administrators are involved in that general maelstrom. I was using all caps because, yes, I do realize how tense things are in that CC area. As a matter of fact, that's why I wrote up my essay, as I'm trying to get to the root of things without dragging in personalities. It's actually ironic that I should find myself an example of how tense things are in that area. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I merely add it to my stock of rollback misclicks, for which no apology is ever required. I believe I currently owe one two three four five, and that's just my 2010 balance. I'm glad the bank finally owes me one! Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have rollback in order to use Huggle, which is a great device. However, I don't understand why there is a rollback button on ordinary watchlist displays. I can't understand why anyone would want to rollback an edit before reading it. I'd wager that that button is clicked more by accident than intentionally. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I know why it's there! Imagine you have a broad ip-range that edits articles on your watchlist and every time they do it you know it's penis vandalism. However, you can remove the button - see [4]! Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I went to my monobook page and added your script annotations, but that still didn't take off the rollback button. Can you please take a look and see what I did wrong? Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong target! monobook.css, not .js! Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! Another goof. I just make one goof after the other today. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It works! Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey cup of tea sounds good. I've made thousands of edits since being granted rollback and never clicked it accidentally even when editing drunk (not that I ever do that as you can see by my consistantly rational, clever and witty comments). Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of us are just klutzes. For instance, me - Like I said five examples in as many months. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, there's an irony here. In all this confusion I never actually read what I accidentally rolled back. I don't want to get into it necessarily, but the whole issue of labeling is actually central to the CC wars. The labeling on both sides helps makes the atmosphere tense. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup. I was doing the ANI on him. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• LOL...for some reason your response hit me as really funny. He continued his antics, removing the ANI thread and just bought himself an indef. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• You think that's funny......he !voted on an AfD that had been closed for 4 years. [5]. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Like digital whack-a-mole. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• My guess with that stuff (and I could be wrong), is that the kid has some assignment involving the topic, gets bored and starts that lame high school silliness. The only other reason I could think of is that they pick a boring article and think it will stay for a long time before anyone catches it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, some score pretty well on the imagination scale. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How to remove rollback from your watchlist

Hi Scotty,

I was reading your talk page and noticed you mentioned the rollback button on your watchlist. I had trouble with that when I first got rollback. Here's the code to hide it there.

Create Special:MyPage/vector.css and insert this code...

.page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link { display: none; }

Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My 2010 atlantic hurricane season predictions

Hi there, I noticed you tagged this page for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G1. G1 only applies to nonsense (eg gibberish) and explicitly excludes fictional material, hoaxes and implausible theories. Unforunately I don't think there is a CSD criterion that applies to this article so we will have to go through the prod process. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I do think you're right about G1. I erred with that category. However, I think that G4 covers it nicely, as it is vandalism. I shall so tag. I don't think it's necessary to wait the days necessary for this article to be deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'd disagree that it is vandalism but (a) I can appreciate others reasonably have a more liberal definition of vandalism and (b) if an arguable CSD criteria can apply that will prevent us waiting 7 days for this to get deleted, I'm not going to debate it! Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I wound up doing hoax. It definitely deserves a speedy, so I don't think we have to worry too much about what category it belongs in. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Cronies of Ferdinand Marcos

Hey Guys! What's wrong about writing on Cronyism in the Philippines? Should I write an article first about this, before I create a list if cronies? I haven't even finished the list and it was already deleted?!

The list can be supported by numerous of references. Ricardo Manapat's Some Are Smarter Than Others is one good book that discussed this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootkinero (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks, some help?

Thanks for your congratulating me on the Jerome Tiger article. I hear you on the crap stub articles deal. There are so many biography articles especially that are one-line, unsourced, etc. I produced a few stubs when I first got on here, but quickly realized that they were of no use to anyone. Okiebradshaw (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dog article

It might be a bit iffy on vandalism in the literal sense, but give it a shot. Yeah, we've found ourselves a loophole, it seems. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Filed away for future reference. :-) Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Spread Tow reconsider

Donald Draper I have no connection to Oxeon, besides having to reading through their website and read a report, I work in the composites industry and come across the concept of Spread Tow. I really think the page for Spread Tow Fabrics should not be deleted, it really is a brand new way of weaving and that are established within the industry. It will get even more common in the composites industry. The subject is though still quite new and there is simply no further sources that I know of to strenghten the article. The Oxeon page I thought was relevant because they are one of few that are using this technique and also invented it I believe. There are more companies working with this technique I have heard, but do not know any names. 27 May. —Preceding undated comment added 07:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

The credit line here[6], and your contribution history, tell a different story. It is inconceivable that somebody so hyperfocused on this obscure manufacturing process would "not know any names" of other companies apart from the one that you are promoting. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Donald Draper I´m sorry, won´t edit the delete template again, just thought it was misleading to say that the eventual incorrectons on the article depends on Oxeon. The image I uploaded is available on www.oxeon.se, just downloaded it from there. I have googled Spread Tow Fabric, and cannot find any other manufacturers using this technique, resellers I have found, but no manufacturers. I hope this article finds an expert on composites (myself not trusted here I understand) that could assure this process is not obscure, but a new form of industry standard alongside the other processes. May 28. —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

I have slightly amended my comments at the CC Probation RfC

Hi. You endorsed my original comments, so I am advising you that I have amended them after a discussion on my talkpage. You may wish to consider your endorsement. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)