Scottywong

	15:51, 2 January 2025 UTC [refresh] 07:51, January 2, 2025 PST [refresh]

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Guideline on automated editing

• diff

I think we sorely need a unified guideline written that covers the points you made there. Atm, from what I can tell, it's spread wide over various guidelines.

If you're interested in collaborating on one, please let me know. - jc37 14:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Snotbot

I am not aware if this has been discussed or not but it will be much appreciated if the bot comments are done with a small font like the deletion sorting notice.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27. Snotbot  t • c »  18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion, would like to hear your opinion --DBigXray 14:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable request.  Done -Scottywong| babble _ 18:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

mail call

Hello, Scottywong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Could do with some advice. Worm^TT(talk) 09:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice on turning a redirect back into an article

Hi Scotty, hope you can help.

On 2 April this year you closed a deletion proposal on Mundane astrology with this comment:

The result was merge to Astrology and/or History of astrology. —SW— talk 23:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. I was not editing WP at that time.

Although talk page of the article advised that the content be merged in the main astrology page, whoever did the merge reduced the content down to a couple of sentences and put it into the History of astrology page. Recently I did some editorial work on the History of astrology page, which removed the inserted comments because they had no relevancy to the topic of that page. Mundane astrology is a technique of astrology, a certain type of application, not a historical event.

It was after making the edits on the history page and running the link-checker script that I became aware that there was a circular redirect going on. At the bottom of every astrology-project page there is a link to an article called Mundane astrology, for which there is now no content. This subject is ratet as being one of 14 pages (out of 633) which has top priority for that project, so rather than remove the template link and cause a big problem for all the astrology project pages that reference this term, I decided to turn the redirect back into an article, using newly developed text that was free of its previous issues. The first edit here, gave the content exactly as it was when I removed it from the history page, and this is how it looked after I did some development work, hoping to continue with more. Before this, I read through the help pages and saw there was no reason why a page which had previously been deleted could not be reintroduced with better content.

But now another editor is saying that because the consensus of the discussion then was to merge and redirect; I am not able to redevelop the content into a new page on this subject. I have tried to explain everything to the editor and have asked him to undo the reversion himself (to avoid accusations of edit-warring) but he is saying I have to put all of the newly developed content into the astrology page first - rathet that the History of astrology page where it was originally placed - so that it will get a better review because there are more editors on that page. This is just silly because there is no other content on the techniques of astrology on that page, and this is just one of many branches astrology has, though generally considered the most important. So the point of all this is to ask if there is a noticeboard or place which deals with these issues, who can confirm whether it's OK for me to recreate an important page with new content without having to go through rigmorals that will generate a lot more problems than they solve. Hope you can help. Thanks -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the material you've written can't be included in one of the existing astrology articles rather than insisting on having its own article, however keep in mind that I don't know the first thing about astrology. The circular redirects generally get cleaned up by bots after awhile, so you probably don't need to worry about it. I would encourage you to incorporate your material into existing astrology articles. If you're dead set on re-creating the mundane astrology article, then I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:DRV with a link to a revision that shows what you're rewritten. If you can show that the concerns in the last AfD have somehow been overcome, then you might find a consensus that there should be a standalone mundane astrology article. Good luck. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had thought about that, but since the result of the deletion was to merge and redirect and not merge and delete, I wasn't sure if that would be the right place. For the sake of what remnants were kept it would have been a whole lot simpler if the article had been deleted, so it could have been created afresh. Understand this is not your subject but the arguments for this article are very strong. Suffice to say we're talking about something with a known 4000 year history that lies at the root of the first attempts to codify astronomical information and has influenced calendrical development, social history, cultural interchange and the decisions of kings. The old crappy rubbish didn't do its job, unfortunately. Thanks again for the advice. If the editor maintains his position I'll initiate this tomorrow. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mundane astrology

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mundane astrology. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Not sure whether you need this or not, but will place it here anyway, to be on the safe-side. Still a little concerned that this is not a review of a deleted page, but it's probably a very unusual situation. Thanks, again -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Thank you for deeper and more careful analysis on consensus. By the way, how were my arguments? --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you had a lot of comments at that AfD, but overall I think you got it right. This is one of those uncommon edge cases where the article (probably) passes WP:GNG but still shouldn't be a standalone article. That's why GNG includes the key word "presumed". -Scottywong| talk _ 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Seven years on WP and this is the first time I've felt compelled to give a Barnstar. this had to be a difficult closure but you have have restored my faith in Wikipedia. Thanks for reading through all those arguments and making a decision! William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -Scottywong| confess _ 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I noticed a problem on your talkpage: not enough kittens.

Arcandam (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Close rationale

Hi. You based your close rationale Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter on WP:INDISCRIMINATE because participants gave "many examples of other potential topics that receive a lot of coverage in reliable sources, but otherwise would not be suitable for an article." This suggests that your rationale did not have to do with the article under discussion. You did not appear to note or respond to Tom Morris's observation that:

". . . Then there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure that this works too well either. I'm not wild about the way the article is structured, but I cannot for the life of me see how that based on the sources used, one can honestly say that it is indiscriminate. It covers the stated topic perfectly well enough. . . . Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)"

I was wondering if you could respond to that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My wording may have been unclear. I didn't mean that the article was in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE because of the examples that were given. I simply meant to demonstrate that it is possible (but not common) for a subject to pass GNG and still not be appropriate for an article. As for Tom Morris' comments, I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. He's not really explaining why the article is not indiscriminate, he's just saying that he can't figure out how it is. If you're asking me to explain why the article is indiscriminate, you're asking the wrong person. My job as the closer is not to inject my own opinion, but rather to analyze the opinions of others. Search for the word "indiscriminate" and you'll find other editors who make that argument. -Scottywong| chatter _ 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the basis for your close that the article was "indiscriminate.," since its not in your close rationale, except for the statement above and the rationale has no discussion of the arguments. Are you saying, here, although you did not say it in your rationale, that the consensus is that this article is indiscriminate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that an argument was made that the article is indiscriminate, and that argument was not adequately refuted by anyone. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you have now included NOTDIARY in your close. Which parts of that and indiscrimante do you base your decision upon?Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While an admin should not be injecting his own opinion on the subject, you do have to give a reason for deletion and if it isn't WP:INDISCRIMINATE, then it would appear that you gave no reason for deleting the article other than "more delete votes", which is not a valid reason. There are quite a few articles where I have used WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a deletion argument, but this is pretty blatantly a case where it was being misused to wikilawyer around WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other invalid arguments, such as the one offered by the nom (the ever-popular "unencyclopedic" argument).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. Where exactly did I say that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was not the reason for deletion? I thought I made that quite clear actually. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

All I can say then is that I am disappointed. You chose to side with the worst possible argument for deletion in that discussion save for the fart and cruft arguments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in separately here, but I think citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE was a flaw in your close, because that policy is actually very specific about what is indiscriminate, and nothing in that policy supports the inclusion of the article as "indiscriminate": it's not a summary-only listing of a work, not a lyrics database, and not a listing of statistics. I see that you've gotten some accolades above from some who like your close, but that doesn't change the fact that the part of NOT you cited says nothing that would support this close. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A Twitter account is a "work" retold by news; events involving a Twitter account is retold in Wikipedia, which could be a summary-only collaboration about events by Twitter account. How is the article neither? --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, a twitter account is not a work. And no one made that argument that it is, unless I am missing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I just implied it there without explicitly saying that it is. If it is not a work, what do you call it then? --George Ho (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, no one made that argument.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming for the sake of argument that a twitter account would be a "work", if a work is retold by independent RS'es that retelling is independent RS coverage. If the article had been simply Kutcher's twitter output shoved into a Wikipedia article without external commentary, then that might have applied. In this case, however, various news outlets commenting on the content of the twitter feed. I think it stupid and inconsequential, and more evidence of the failing of Western Civilization... but our job is not to stand in judgment on what pop culture phenomena RS'es choose to highlight. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't retelling news also a definition of retelling soap opera stories in newspapers and mags? --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Those are reliable sources for those shows, and help establish notability per the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Devil means, as neither close rationale of indiscriminate or notdairy are supported by consensus, nor by the sources cited in the discussion, nor by the text, than their assertion is difficult to understand or uphold your close. I agree.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Here comes the predictable badgering and whining, WP:INDISCRIMINATE works just fine here. What it boils down to is that the act of tweeting is simply too insignificant to be worthy of a full article attention. You are selectively culling everything a famous person says via one medium and putting it into article form, i.e. indiscriminate. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

... Except that it doesn't. Indiscriminate lists exactly three sorts of information. You want it to say "Not twitter" along with it? Propose the change and get consensus. Like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the victim of people thinking they understand what it says based on the shortcut, when the reality is much more subtle. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only does it not say that but that's not the article that was being discussed.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, at the top of WP:NOT it clearly says "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." So, just because an article doesn't include summary-only descriptions, lyrics, or statistics doesn't mean that it can't possibly be indiscriminate. These are just a few examples. I'd like to respond more thoroughly but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment. -Scottywong| spout _ 23:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE have examples in them. That is what the text means. The enumerations under each major heading (the "sections") are themselves carefully agreed upon, and adding new ones on the fly requires an IAR invocation, rather than just saying "well, it kinda fits here even if it isn't listed", which is what I believe you've done here. Again, there's no reason consensus can't include a NOTTWITTER in the future, but I do not believe that you can assign appropriate policy-based weighting to such a policy before it's been actually enumerated. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to your further response Scotty. Especially with the lack of textual, citation and consensus support. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that INDISCRIMINATE was being applied indiscriminately in the arguments (o-hohoho), Scotty is right in that the list in the policy isn't (and well shouldn't try to be) exhaustive. The issue more is that WP:IINFO is unbounded. It says indiscriminate collections of info are bad, but doesn't really suggest any defining features of such a thing besides its indiscriminate-ness. If I claimed that the article on Zeppelins was indiscriminate, how would anyone here 'adequately refute' that? Is there a better way than saying 'nuh-uh, it's very discriminate'? If there is, I hope it's in policy somewhere...Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why we check ourselves with reliable sources, and have they treated it as a topic, which all the citations in the discussion showed they did. And the only response was the Wiki should not cover it, which response had no consensus. And, regardless, there is still no actual textual support in the policy, that says this here must be deleted (or really absolutely kept out) - which means the only fallback to rely on is consensus. But here there was no consensus.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, Scottywong isn't the only one who takes an expansivist view of IINFO. TenPoundHammer repeatedly did so, ignored my requests that he use it appropriately, and that refusal was my basis for participation in the RFC/U on him. However, he never said anything remotely as articulate a justification for a view as what Scottywong has already articulated here. I hadn't even considered that interpretation before, and while I disagree with it, it's almost certainly something that should be hashed out at an RfC on WT:NOT rather than here on Scottywong's talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Have to say that I agree WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not meant to include an exhaustive list. The problem is that the policy doesn't apply here because the article in question was not, as Tarc describes, "selectively culling everything a famous person says via one medium and putting it into article form" and, more importantly, that is not the only form the article could take. I pointed to several sources such as this one about Kutcher's Twitter activities that pointed to lasting significance of the subject that was clearly not some variation of "OMG! Kutcher tweeted!" I was not the only one to make such observations yet that argument did not get addressed at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you see it that way, since the AfD didn't go the way you liek. This is what invariably happens after these sorts of things, the nitpicking and wiki-lawyering and the parsing. Indiscriminate fits just fine here; random blatherings by celebrities are not notable, and trying to pick out one form of the blather and making an article about it is what we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And no doubt, you are a better person than us Tarc, you would never do something like rehashing your arguments after the fact. Regardless, I agree with Jclemens, the issue regarding IINFO is more an issue for WP:NOT/Talk than Scottywong, and the issue regarding @aplusk is closed for the time being. 150.35.244.246 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is closed for the time being but the purpose here is to discuss whether to have a deletion review. I am awaiting Scotty's further response, he said he would give to the concerns expressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Can you please userfy this for a DRV consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There isn't currently a DRV for this article. -Scottywong| comment _ 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am considering a DRV. Maybe I should wait for the Bieber on Twitter outcome, but I am concerned that there may have been some procedural oddities in relisting this twice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The second relisting seemed to be more in the articles favor than against it, by Tom Morris anyhow; but that's beside the point. I'm not interested in a round two, but so long as the article is deleted, Scotty, you mentioned in the closing that it could be restored so that some information could be moved to another article; can that be done? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In the Beaber deletion discussion, Hawkeye, says that if an article is deleted under wp;not, the material in the article may not be used anywhere in the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Time Magazine [1] covers the twitter not just the person or something he did with twitter, it making their Top 10 Celebrity Twitter Feeds. Other coverage was there about it being the most popular twitter account for a time, and whatnot. There was coverage in the article about the twitter account itself, not just various events that occurred involving it. Dream Focus 01:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Only one review? Where are other reviews with a general overview on account as a whole? --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  They got deleted and I don't have a photographic memory. If it gets userfied as TonyTheTiger request I'll point them out to you. Dream Focus 07:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Only ones that are not reviews about only one specific message or a specific person himself? --George Ho (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yes. Coverage for being the most popular twitter account, when it had that. Dream Focus 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Scotty, whats up with my userfication request?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cannot delete it twice, surely

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter is listed twice, on July 3 and July 4. Snotbot was the last 'person' to be working in that vicinity. Anarchangel (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)At 23:54 the nominator attempted to tranclude the discussion into the July 3 log, but did so incorrectly resulting in no transclusion. At 00:12 the bot noticed it was not transcluded in a log, and added it to the July 4th log. Then at 02:10 an editor noticed the failed attempt to tranclude and fixed it. So really when the bot made the edit it was correct, it obviously couldn't anticipate another editor completing the attempt to tranclude it in the earlier log. I don't see a harm to having it be in both, other then perhaps confusing relisters. Monty₈₄₅ 05:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose it would hurt to have it listed at only July 3? That is what I did. Anarchangel (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)