User talk:ScottW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Someone must have been lazy, as you have not been welcomed yet. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome, and sorry for your not being welcomed in the past!Benon 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bruce Guthrie

Re:copyright. Good point, I hadn't realized that. Can it be reworded to protect it from cp? I think the information is important to keep. (This is why I use CC on my pages) Chadlupkes 22:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James M. Cowan

Please note, CSD A8 is not applicable to government work, such as this. It is only for commercial sites. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Don't know. I'd say, ignore it. Let's see about deletion first... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedying hoaxes

Thanks for your interest in getting it right--I appreciate that. In this case, though, I'm not sure there's a clear-cut distinction to be made. The essay WP:SNOW may be useful. Personally, I don't delete something like the article this discussion started with because I can't be sure it's not an attempt to write a real article that just went horribly awry. When I say that a transparent hoax (there's a difference between an obvious hoax and a transparent hoax) can be speedied I mean something like, "Bill Gates today acquired the United Kingdom for $47 billion," or whatever--written in coherent sentences, but could be considered patent nonsense because there's no way that the author meant it not to be nonsense. One can't get too caught up in the wording of the policies; I'm fond of this concise statement by one of our oldest and most distinguished administrators. Chick Bowen 23:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gimmie Coffee Prod

Thanks for pointing out the history that I missed. I have removed the prod. Vegaswikian 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BikeShare

I'm still kind of skeptical, given the sheer number of campus activities there are out there. I won't afd it for now -- let me know when you get done editing and I'll look at it again. Thanks for the message! NawlinWiki 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oral / verbal contract

Good point. Done. Deizio talk 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Yes I made that change myself not aware of not being logged in. The article changed almost 100% from the time I voted and now find it acceptable.--Nick Y. 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWAC-TV

Thank you very much for your kind comment! Bwithh 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotem mediation

Scott, I didn't intend to imply that I have a problem with you or that you have done anything wrong, I just added you to the list as one of the "main witnesses", so to speak, one of the people that has followed it from almost the beginning but haven't become involved in one side or the other. I thought your input to the mediation process would be valuable. It wasn't my impression that being listed on the RfM meant that someone thought you needed mediation, but just that you were involved in the discussions, even though your position and way of acting were perfectly allright. If you would prefer to be removed from the list of people, no problem. Again, I have no problem with you at all. Fram 07:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SBUX

Scott I went to town on the Starbucks article today. For the most part I think it is one of the better articles here but a few loose ends remain. You're one of the more active editors there (and you do a nice job too, btw) feel free to make any changes to my changes. :-) Mr Christopher 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just took a quick look over those changes, and I think they look good. Moving the quotes section to criticism makes a lot of sense for the content that's there at the moment. There are a couple of things I might change regarding the coffee market, but those are issues I've been planning to get to anyway. So I'll probably rearrange that sort of thing in a larger edit (I'm pretty slow moving on this stuff), and then put those changes up for discussion on the talk page. By the way, where did you get the 3.7% fair trade number? I'm getting inconsistant numbers on that one.
The section of this article that pains me every time I look at it is Starbucks in pop-culture. It consistently seems to be the biggest target for hit and run references for anything remotely related to Starbucks or a Starbucks-like coffee shop. I have an idea for trimming this section substantially so that it doesn't become an endless list. I'll try to post it this weekend, and any feedback you have would be appreciated.
Thanks again for making those changes. I think that it's going to take periodic efforts like that to prevent this article from becoming a sprawl of alternating praise and criticism. ScottW 00:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Scott, I think I got the 3.7% figure either from the Starbucks website or one of their employee newsletters (I have a relative who works for Starbucks so I read some of their employee announcements). Those numbers change each year and I have read that Fair Trade coffee sales double every two years in the US. I'll dedicate some time to citing some of the actual numbers as soon as my schedule will permit. The numbers I get from Starbucks will be cited as "according to Starbucks" or some other way of clarifying where the numbers originate. Mr Christopher 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I agree a Starbucks source would be appropriate. ScottW 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Beads

Hi Scott, I just added a comment to the Bead Talkpage. Could you give it a quick glance when you have a chance? Thanks :) --Doc Tropics 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert Scott, yer a great guy :) --Doc Tropics 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mesothelioma

Thanks for fixing those spammy links! Nice catch! --Mdwyer 04:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that one was kind of tricky. I found it through a link search someone posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, so I was fairly certain it was spam, but it looked like good information. Google Scholar came through though. From the looks of it, some of the link spam is getting more sophisticated than I would have thought. ScottW 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. ticker symbols (2nd Nomination)

Thanks for your comments on this proposed deletion. The comment you made was contested by the user User:Mister.Manticore and since then there has been a lengthy debate. If you would help us reach consensus it would help keep wikipedia encyclopedic and useful... Flying Hamster 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, apparently the admin was swayed by our previous arguments. :) Flying Hamster 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suite101.com AfD

An article that you have been involved in editing, Suite101.com, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You originally PROD'd this article

--A. B. 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

... for catching and fixing all those bad searchlink URLs for EJRS.com spam. It was late and I was falling asleep.

--A. B. 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to be able to contribute in some way. Thanks for doing all of the leg work on those. ScottW 21:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Sataspes correction

Thanks a lot for showing that it is Sataspes not Satapes. I was wondering since the story seemed too unique and realistic to be made up. I'll take it from here. Thanks again. The Behnam 21:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. It looks like an interesting topic. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are more alternate spellings that would turn up even more information. Sadly, the Web is generally lacking in information on these subjects. ScottW 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi ScottW, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/User_talk%7EScottW_5993.html"