User talk:Scott Wilson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like to keep my conversations together: if you ask me something here, I'll reply here unless you ask otherwise. If I ask you something on your talk page, please reply there - I'll watch your talk page.


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Scott Wilson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lst27 21:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Legal tender in Scotland

There is a concept of legal tender in Scotland. When they existed, Bank of England £1 notes were legal tender. The Scottish Parliament says [1]

Under this narrow legal definition Scottish banknotes have never, even in Scotland, except for two very short periods during the two World Wars, been legal tender. Bank of England banknotes are also not legal tender in Scotland under this definition. Only coins from the Royal Mint are legal tender in Scotland and even these are subject to limitations, e.g. £1 worth of 1pcoins is legal tender but £1.01 is not. £1 and £2 coins are legal tender in Scotland to unlimited amounts. --Henrygb 09:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Air Transat Flight 236

Hi, I have changed the name of the first officer back to "Dirk", I have explained on the talkpage. Can you take a look at it? Yours, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your opinion

Hello. Thanks for adding your opinion to List of mayors of Calgary, Alberta. If you don't mind, please add it to your watch list so that I am not the only one reverting this user. Thanks. -- JamesTeterenko 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help: Third Opinion

I apologize for disturbing your page, but a Third Opinion you provided for University of California, Riverside is apparently not clear enough for one or more debating parties in question, and there is now disagreement about what you're actually saying. Would you be so kind as to just point out which interpretation is correct? Or neither? Or expound in general on the debate at hand (should you feel like it)? 10:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Scott! I've noticed that in recent weeks you edited the UCR article and ran into UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. A number of us are now drafting a Request for Comment/Arbitration [2] to solicite the community's thoughts on this situation. We've already confirmed that UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower have used sockpuppets (though the two appear to be distinct people) [3]. I just wanted to make you aware of this effort in case you're interested in voicing your support for the RfC/A. Sharqi 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madejski Stadium

Thanks for giving the third opinion for the above article. Would you mind keeping a watch on this page for a while, I'm having difficulty with an anon editor on this page removing even the barest mention of the rugby team, never mind the two possible debatable edits. I have left notes on the article talk page, as well as on the user talk page(s), (which is difficult as they are coming from a dynamic IP address), with no response. I can understand the editor possibly disagreeing that it's their "home" (and hence that it's classed as a rugby stadium) which is why I haven't re-inserted those items, but I can't understand the removal of the verifable fact that the team play their home games there. Cheers, MartinRe 23:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I wish to express my thanks for giving a third opinion at Talk:Earth Day. __earth (Talk) 16:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You're very welcome. I'll continue to hang around the talk page and clarify my opinion as necessary. --Scott Wilson 17:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May I ask you a question?

Thank you for your time on the other day, Scott. I'd like to know what procedures were taken at the time when you were asked by User:SFC9394 to participate in the discussion as a tiebreaker. As far as I've looked round in Wikipedia, I've been failing so far to find how both of you contacted each other.--ComSpex 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Someone posted a request on the Wikipedia:Third opinion asking for an opinion on the issues surrounding your talk page. I was at no time contacted directly by SFC9394, and due to the set up of the third opinion page, I did not know which one of you posted the request, nor could the lister have known who would respond out of the many who give third opinions. --Scott Wilson 19:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, Scott. What I'd like to know is where it is written in Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please pin-point it out for me. My assumption is that there should be a clickable hyperlink there, which, however, I cannot find.--ComSpex 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • As with many pages of its type, listings are cleared on WP:3O when they are dealt with. Here is the page as it looked when the dispute in question was listed. --Scott Wilson 15:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Scott. My annyoing and would-be-wrong assumption is now confirmed as wrong assumption. It is a tricky system that the request was only shown for a very short time not more than one minute.--219.105.45.236 03:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of Sockputtery

To whoever tagged me as a Sockpuppet and anyone else it may concern; please note that I sail through the 100 edit rule as noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#When_questions_arise. --Scott Wilson 15:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't make much sense did it? ! I have went and asked for assistance at AMA - I am not going to bother with the user directly - what he did was happily warnable, but no doubt he would just accuse me of stalking him again if I warned him for it. I will see what the guys over at AMA say. Sorry for dragging you into this! SFC9394 18:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sco:Tramcar

Thryduulf has written the following comment: "Sorry, I can't help with this. There is no interwiki link to sco: from WP:RA, so it might be there isn't one? My best suggestion is to ask someone in category:user sco as they'll probably have a better idea where to look than I do. Sorry." Could you help me out with requesting an article on the Scots wikipedia.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

[edit] Third opinion on John Wayne

  • Thanks for the opinion. If the anonymous user had written an explanation as well as yours then I would have let his edit stand. Mfields1 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. It's refreshing to see someone open to reason - sometimes third opinions can get so acrimonious. --Scott Wilson 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3O on List of Transylvanians

I would like to ask you to read my comment to your message, and possibly take it into consideration. I feel that you have not addressed the point. Thank you. Dahn 21:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on your opinion as User:Dahn is still unconvinced. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 22:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: 3O

thank you for taking the time to render a third opinion in the dispute between Cshay and me --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scott, a sincere "Thank you". Cshay 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are very welcome. --Scott Wilson 08:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with AbsolutDan

Hi, Scott, Can you provide third party input in a strange case involving AbsolutDan? TIA

[edit] Problem with AbsolutDan

Hi, Scott, Can you provide third party input in a strange case involving AbsolutDan? TIA

[edit] Big Royal Dig

Dear Scott, I am the author of the Big Royal Dig article and am opposed to its being merged into Time Team. I will give my reasons below. Firstly, however, may I ask if you also removed my notice that work was ONGOING on this article? I wish you had waited till the article was complete before proposing a merge.

Secondly - I have worked alot on Buckingham Palace, and Buckingham Palace Gardens. Events like Prom at the Palace and Party at the Palacem which were "specials" in the Queen's Garden, I did not contribute to, but they have their own discrete articles as they were special events. The Big Royal Dig has interest beyond its date as being linked to three Royal residences which each have a substantial article themselves. I suppose there is a case for putting the information under those heading but as Prom at the Palace, Party at the Palace, and indeed Children's Party at the Palace all have discrete articles I think that the Big Royal Dig is worth its own article.

This is also a special inasmuch as it is tied to events celebrating the Queen's 80th birthday (like the Children's Party) and therefore has added resonance.

I would therefore appreciate it if you would remove the suggestion and allow me to finish what I can of the article before you make such a proposition.

If you removed it, would you also please restore my notice about the article being in progress and about to be extended.

Please by all means reply to my talk page.

Thanks and best wishes. -- FClef (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Royal Dig UPDATE

Dear Scott - on further reflection, and inasmuch as the article I had begun was incomplete, as the author I have withdrawn the merge suggestion pending completion. I am still opposed to a merge on all the grounds given above.

I have also restored my notice about the article being under construction.

Will send you a note when I've written as much as I can. I'm not an archaeologist and can only write a limited amount.


See how we go. Best wishes. -- FClef (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

FClef, thanks for the notes. First of all, I've re-commented the notice about the expansion of the Big Royal Dig article - it's an internal thing for people who are editing the page; ordinary readers don't need to see it (and, IMNSHO leaving it out in the open looks unprofessional and untidy). Try not to think of it as deleted; merely moved back a level. It's still clearly visible to anyone changing the article.
Personally, I feel the article should be merged. Especially as it stands, there isn't much notable content to it (bear in mind that later on it can always be split off from Time Team if more information turns up), nor, in my opinion, will there ever be - a notice that the article is unfinished (something which could be applied to many of Wikipedia's articles) will not magically make more information appear. It's not like any enormously ground breaking (excuse the pun) finds were made - certainly not any more than on other episodes of Time Team. The fact that it's at the Royal palaces is notable, but that can be adequately covered in the Time Team article - the examples you give of concerts don't really have any parent article they could be considered a specific instance of.
On the other hand, your mention of Buckingham Palace Gardens and so on presents another potential for merging, or at least mentioning - surely the dig itself should be mentioned in the articles about the respective locations?
With your agreement, I'd like to put the merge proposal templates back in place, and start a discussion section on Talk:Time Team. You and I can post our arguments each way (mainly, I suspect cross posts of what we're saying here) and, hopefully, some other editors will chip in and we can establish some consensus - if they don't after a couple of days, we can always ask for a third opinion. --Scott Wilson 02:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
AH. thanks for the explanation about the note at the top , Scott. I am still pretty much of a Wikivirgin. I have during the past night (! is that the morning lark I hear? !) written as much as I can on the Big Royal Dig article. I think you may find it further reaching than just a Time Team article. Notably, I've fleshed out the lead section which will give some of the argument as to why this warrants its own article.
Additionally I will summarize some of it in the appropriate subject articles, so keep a watch on those.
Taking your point about my examples, both Prom and Party at the Palace could have been merged under Golden Jubilee Weekend as their logical "parent" - but no, they were given their own articles.
If you feel you MUST propose a merge (but I sincerely hope you won't) please copy this correspondence to the Time Team talk page. I will keep a watch on it and join you there.
In the meanwhile please confirm to my Talk Page that we can meet there after you have read and considered the article, which I hope you will like in its own right.
(Afterthought: Another reason that I think this warrants its own article is that the three palaces were considered together and it somewhat defeats the purpose to break up the results.)
Best wishes -- FClef (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Royal Dig FURTHER UPDATE

Dear Scott. Just to keep you in the loop - Big Royal Dig is now up and running, being edited, and has its talk page going.

any discussion you might have, please go to Talk: Big Royal Dig.

Thanks and best wishes. – FClef (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Royal Dig deleted

As the author, I was left with no option but to request this.

I consider that your actions in proposing a merge while I was writing this article were inimical and prejudicial. I have been writing for Wikipedia for several months and never have I been in a position where a new contribution of mine was proposed for Merge before it had even been completed. I stayed up all night working on that article, making it as sparkling as possible, although I felt the sword of Damocles hanging over my head in fear that you would re-propose the Merge. Indeed, you couldn't wait to do so! - As soon as you saw the article was completed, you pounced again, thus nipping it in the bud within its first 24 hours and before it had had any chance to develop a readership. How nice.

You left me with alot of pain and misery, isolated and inhibited, with no readers for my rather good article except under a cloud of Merge proposal. I have never behaved to a fellow writer the way you did. In desperation, I wrote a long statement of opposition on Talk:Time Team. I stand by every word of it.

But my heart had gone out of it. You succeeded in killing my article before it had even been seen by the Wikipedia community. I put 15 miserable hours into writing and then defending my work over two sleepless nights. And what hurts is, that it was a good article.

So I successfully applied for a speedy deletion. I feel shattered and devastated instead of experiencing any of the joy of originating a new article. Thanks so much for your prejudicial handling of my work.

Despite this experience I will continue to write. My next article will be a flight-related one. I notice that you are in that field yourself, and I am sure that you would not be above repeating the treatment you doled out. However, I have no wish to repeat the experience of being muzzled within 24 hours - especially after putting in weeks of research and work.

This has been a traumatic, humiliating and exhausting experience for me. I don't want you as a reader or editor of my work, since you have shown yourself to be inimical. Please leave my future contributions alone. I certainly don't intend to touch yours. There are plenty of other experts who will work more impartially with my contributions.

I refer you to the last paragraph of my opposition statement - how would you feel if someone slapped you with a merge proposal within the first 24 hours of an article you had written? I hope that I never treat someone's work with the utter lack of respect, prejudice, and strong-arming verging on bullying, that you used. -- FClef (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to back FClef up here, I didn't see the need for a merge, as the information collected for these programmes were especially notable given the royal connection (though I'm no Royalist: the historical information discovered during the programmes, and the fact that it happened on royal ground at all, made it notable outside of the regular Time Team article). I'm a little surprised that he nominated the article for deletion, and that it was accepted so quickly - I think your second slapping of the merger tags was a little hasty. I wish this could have been talked through more on its talk page before you did that. The encyclopedia has lost an informative article from this merge, which makes me sad.  :-( Stephenb (Talk) 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the merge tags are proposed merge tags. Unlike proposed deletion tags, dissent should be voiced by discussion on the appropriate talk page, which had begun, rather than removing the tags completely. No-one had done any actual merging either. I too am surprised at FClef's deletion of the page - it was well-written and at the very least could have yielded some facts for the main Time Team article - but it's done now. --Scott Wilson 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to this, which together with my comunication of yesterday's date on this page should clarify things and lessen your "surprise" at my deletion. I reiterate that I don't want you involved with future contributions of mine. –– FClef (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vote for me

im nominated for system operator (sysop) or admin vote for me please! vote here i love wikipedia and would love it if you voted for me so i can continue to contribute and help out even more! Qrc2006 16:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:24.7.127.25

This person is vandaling againg. Enlil Ninlil 06:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BA Orders

Yes you are right the orders have not been confirmed externally, however they have been confirmed by fleet management that they do in fact exist.Benny45boy 12:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] John Adams

Hi Scott, I replied to you on the talk page, care to take a look? Thanks for giving your opinion even when it was third third opinion :). --Strothra 01:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coast guard

You may perhaps be interested to take a look at the changes I have made to the article. - Privacy 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayr Scottish Eagles

Thanks for catching my mistake! Sorry about getting sloppy on the disambiguation project. Mytildebang 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No bother. We all make mistakes; that's what reverts are for. --Scott Wilson 00:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ringworld

Your last edit comment was

In physics, instantaneous means occuring in so short a time as to be not worth mentioning; like lightspeed. Parenthetical and pedantic remarks like that add little to the article

There's no article for instantaneous; there's no use of the word instantaneous in Physics. In Action at a distance (physics) we have the following:

Current physical theories incorporate the upper limit on propagation of interaction as one of their basic building blocks, hence ruling out instantaneous action-at-a-distance.

If you've read any of Niven's Flash Crowd series of stories, or his famous "Exercise in Speculation: The Theory and Practice of Teleportation", you know that lightspeed, momentum and energy conservation limitations are very important. Even in the Ringworld series mention is made of these issues and how they limit the use of stepping discs across the Ringworld. I don't wish to start an edit war, but you are plainly wrong. Rpresser 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it was taught to me in physics, however, I'll change the article to say 'near instant' rather than instantaneous - I'm well aware the the lightspeed limit is applicable; I've probably read most of Niven's science fiction short stories. My gripe not that the transport is istant, is that parenthetical remarks about lightspeed are not relevant in that section of the article. --Scott Wilson 15:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Wilson disambiguation

I saw you went ahead with the disambiguation, which is fine, but I think there may be some confusion with the talkpages. Right now the talkpage to Scott Wilson (the disambiguation page) redirects to Talk:Scott Wilson (judge). Do you think that needs to be changed?

I see you fixed the redirects to Scott Wilson (Judge), which is appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. It's a good point. The templates on Talk:Scott Wilson (judge) are relevant to that article, but the discussion would probably be more relevant to Talk:Scott Wilson. I'm not sure what should be done, though in the short term, I'll kill the redirect. -Scott Wilson 23:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not critical in any event, nor is the choice of preposition on the dab page. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humourous

This is not a UK/US thing. It's maybe more like rigorous (there is no "rigourous" either). See User:Spellmaster for details. Thanks for caring about spelling. --Guinnog 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My apologies, and thanks to you for actually doing something about spelling. --Scott Wilson 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion for Ishaq al-Fayadh and its AFD...

I noticed you removed the Third Opinion requests. Should I bring them to RFC instead? I originally placed them because the conflict was primarily between Agha Nader and I, and because of similar conflicts between us elsewhere, and I am getting tired of dealing with him. So, should I still take it to RFC? I'm not sure since there was some involvement from other people, but they don't appear to have taken any action. The Behnam 00:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinions are, strictly speaking, only for disputes involving two editors, as the only legitimacy the third opiner has is by creating a consensus with one of the involved parties; it's intended purely as a tie-breaker. Strictly speaking, the only place Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad should be listed is RfC. Nonetheless, I sympathise with you; I've always felt there's a need for an '(n+1)th opinion'; something more informal, between a third opinion and a request for comment, which is why I very often stick my oar in anyway, even on a third opinion request I've removed. I recommend that you do make a request for comment for the Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad article; the flood of editors that'll view the article will very quickly make it clear what the consensus is, and it'd be very hard for any editor to ignore that level of involvement. It's probably not worth listing the AfD though - people tend to wander by them on their own (and indeed have in recent days). --Scott Wilson 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Regarding this both links were red at the time of reverting, now they are both blue. Please contextualize things. Thanks, Yanksox 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Looking back, I now see that there was a fair amount of messing around and speedy deletion going on with Scott Wilson Group. --Scott Wilson 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3rd opinion on Killed in action

Thanks for you opinion as I was at a deadlock on this one. I found KIA by random article so quite neutral in this. I'm not a new user and have had many arguments on difficult subjects across a wide variety of articles trying to find a NPOV term. I never get into edit wars as I do use the talk pages. The problem is that even though I have not yet altered the article further the other user is merrily saying I'm trying to escalate matters and they are proceeding with...

I put the last diff he did as it looks like I'm not allowed to actually comment on the Cabal page someone else creates.

I need some advice here. I can't really let the article persist with what I see is misleading information and the desire to expand the scope of the article beyond what can be provided by reliable sources. So far I have only edited the article once [6] and you can see how simple the change was though I did this after a lot of talk and did it after I provided the cites in the talk and was hoping to see if any other editors would trigger based on watchlists. We're not talking edit war here. It was partly reverted with [7]. I have not yet edited the article again after this nor after your 3rd opinion (and didn't expect to until a few days had passed as the other party had requested this).

He seems to have gone off the deep end though and now accuses me of not following process,

"Apparently, the current Third Opinion, obtained without follwing Wikipedia's recommended steps, only addresses the change you made, not the term "homicide."

Bizarre ! As the 3rd opinion provider, is this what you meant ? and was it wrong that I asked for the 3rd opinion at this time ? Have I violated some small part Wikipedia policy (I'd never heard of the Wikipedia:AMA and didn't think that the cabal existed and as this other editor has said things like..."Would you also suppose that, as a relation, you could complain to Bradford Patrick, according to GuideStar, Wikimedia Foundation's former "outside counsel" and current executive director? I have the Wikimedia Foundation's contact information because I am CEO of an organization...etc etc".

and that this other editor has intimated some blocking or restriction on my logon with [8] I'm a little afraid my logon could be blocked. At over 260 main space edits I'm working towards getting access to the WP:AWB and so far after over 800 edits across many pages without a single edit war or block or even NPA or warning and I want a clean history as I work towards admin in say 1 - 2 years time when I get to around 3000 edits.

This other party has been the hardest user so far. Am I reading too much into this and just let the AMA and cabal proceed ?. Am I being unfriendly, stubborn or suggesting what amounts to vandalism, as he suggests, for trying to work this one out ? Ttiotsw 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through WP:DR, it would seem that you have perhaps not followed the exact letter of the steps laid out there, but hardly anyone does (especially in apparently minor cases like this that get third opinions; often a third opinion is the only stage of dispute resolution used), and your actions are clearly defensible as ignoring all rules. I would however caution you; don't come down off the moral high ground and engage in mudslinging tactics. Concentrate on the issues at hand, not other editors. Do your utmost to remain civil and consider having a nice cup of tea and a sit down. I'll also keep watching killed in action and continue to clarify and refine my third opinion as necessary. --Scott Wilson 12:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, should I have stayed with the mediation route first ?. The trouble is that the mediation cabal was filed with an edit summary that calls me an anonymous user and goes on about my grammar on the talk page (yes really !) and my "original research". The mediation cabal case entry doesn't paint a pretty picture. The entry was also filed by the other party just hours after my reply on the talk page discussing their partial revert. I would have though that we back off for a few days to see if any other editors get involved. As the mediation case still has the rather biased view I'm working with the cabal on the Coordination Desk discussing how the case gets altered first before I accept mediation. Ttiotsw 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. In the vast majority of cases like this, a third opinion is all it takes to settle a dispute; you're entirely allowed to attempt to shortcut the dispute resolution process if you think you can reach agreement with all other parties quicker - this is exactly what WP:IAR is all about. In my opinion, our mutual friend Mr Rich is attempting to WikiLawyer the dispute resolution process to declare your points invalid because you've not followed the dispute resolution process to the letter, and this is something which cannot and should not be done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's guidelines are meant to be interpreted with a health dose of common sense, and, unlike real-life laws, a technical interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines should never override the principles they express. If I were in your position, I'd just sit it out. Let this wash over you; don't be tempted to lower yourself to the mudslinging Mr Rich is engaging in. I'm not very familiar with the mediation process, but the mediators will give you a chance to give your side of the story; there's no point fighting with Mr Rich any more; he's not going to be convinced by you or I. --Scott Wilson 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reza Shah Debate

Scott as someone who just stepped in, your assessment is superficial and incorrect on several counts. We are not talking about a single paragraph or statement. The additions are based on hatred and a clear intent at vandalism by a single user/sockpuppets (and even if one statement in there might be correct, none of it belongs in the "Death of Reza Shah section"). You are also incorrect about this issue being between two people. Please read the discussion above which spans several weeks: it involves ONE person/sockpuppet against SEVERAL editors working to control the situation created by a clear vandal who repeatedly provokes and instigates personal attacks. I find it astounding that this situation, which started before I began assisting in vandalism control here, has still not resulted in the banning of the user+sockpuppet accounts. Mehrshad123 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Scott, Thank you for your suggestions on Reza Shah page. I totally agree with you. Providing both sides of an argument provides a much more balanced approach. However, Mehshad123's response to your comments as superficial and incorrect shows that he has made up his mind. Only his POV is the Truth and Nothing but the Truth. This is rather frustrating, since a lot of time and energy are being wasted in a childish rv game. I am not yet frustrated enough to leave this place and let these people to use Wikipedia as a froum for their Aryan race glorification. But I need your help in bringing a more balanced approach to this forum. I do not want to edit the page and he totally rv it again. Best Regards, Artaxerex 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott please don't touch topics you know nothing about. There are no sources required on the origin of Iran - it is a well established fact from literature dating back to antiquity. The only supporting your edits is a troll. Mehrshad123 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The paragraph I replaced was supported by two sources. Nonetheless, if, as you say, it is a "well established fact", you should have no problem in citing a source to support that. --Scott Wilson 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Arbitration is appreciated

Dear Scott, Please help to establish a NPOV voice in Reza shah Page. A group of Iranchamber bloger are trying to replace and delete all sourced material in Reza Shah page -- again. I have reverted the article to the old protected version. But I am sure that they will overrule me. Unfortunately I am very busy and I cannot get into thier game of revert. The Artaxerex, Melca, and I are not related but we belive in facts we are being accused of sock puppets (evidently, Artaxerex had asked some of his students to watch the page but they all are banned now).

The pro-Reza shah group of editors refer to conspiracy theories and disregard all historical facts as such. They just bring new editors from Iranchamber(the newest is Arad, after shervink, Rayis, the Behnam, Khorshid, Aghanader, Mehrshad123,SG-talk, and ...)and by building a majority they try to distort facts that Reza Shah sympathized with Nazi Germany, making the Jewish community fearful of possible persecutions, and amny of his policies at the time was definitely anti-Jewish.

For example, they Edvin Black material according to them is discredited so also is the

  • Sanasarian, Eliz (2000). Religious Minorities in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77073-4.

In fact, I just check the page and Rayis reverted the protected version and accusing me agin of being sock puppet. This group may ban me soon and then I will not be able to even ask for help from people like you. I am hopping that you act as the champion for turth and NPOV.

Thanks, Yima 15:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Scott, this is a very likely sock puppet as you can appreciate from his edit count Yima (talk • contribs • count). He is sock puppet of Artaxerex (talk • contribs • count) the multiple suck puppet master as you can see here calling all other editors to be from "Iranchamber" which is completely absurd and disruptive as you can imagine. He comes every month with multiple sock puppets to edit war and then ask for page protection --Rayis 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tinsley Viaduct

Hi there Scott Wilson. As you have commented on the above article's disscussion page, I'd like to invite you to a poll on the inclusion or not of the coordinates box, here. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Page

What a lovely user page. I find it very hard to believe that someone like you does not have a girlfriend Paul210 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [comment moved from User:Scott Wilson, 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Image:Bashkirian2937.jpg

Hello, Scott Wilson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Bashkirian2937.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Scott Wilson/Sandbox/Accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft mockup/2000-2025. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eagle 4184 crashsite.jpg

Hello, Scott Wilson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Eagle 4184 crashsite.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Scott Wilson/Sandbox/Accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft mockup/1975-1999. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flight 175 TV news.jpg

Hello, Scott Wilson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Flight 175 TV news.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Scott Wilson/Sandbox/Accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft mockup/2000-2025. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Linate.jpg

Hello, Scott Wilson. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Linate.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Scott Wilson/Sandbox/Accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft mockup/2000-2025. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:United Airlines 811 Cargo Hole 1.png

Hello Scott Wilson, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:United Airlines 811 Cargo Hole 1.png) was found at the following location: User:Scott Wilson/Sandbox/Accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft mockup/1975-1999. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:X-Plane_icon.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:X-Plane_icon.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Lothian Buses

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Scott Wilson! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule photobucket\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Elevator

Perhaps I used the wrong warn function. No, it wasn't vandalism, but yes, it needs a citation -- at least, in my opinion. Given my limited knowledge of "space elevators", I'm not going to check up on it further. Thanks CiTrusD (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:HeraldMasthead.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:HeraldMasthead.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)