User talk:ScrapIronIV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Holloway

Which part of WP:BRD are you having trouble understanding? Cassianto^Talk 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The part where you and your buddies own the article, and consistently choose to be wrong. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that under that essay. So you appear to be both disruptive and stupid. Cassianto^Talk 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Stanley Holloway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cassianto^Talk 13:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than throw spurious ownership claims, perhaps, as per my edit summary, you could try to civilly discuss things on the talk page, rather than engage in a knee-jerk edit war. That would be a much more constructive path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. I know you both; I have seen your work, and your appearances on the drama boards. You write good articles, and deserve proper respect for that. But you do not choose to communicate, civilly or otherwise. You tagteam to get your way, and it is tiresome. I am done with children for a while. Keep your little playground. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Still uncivil, I see. If you decide not to take part in consensus-building discussions on a consensus-driven project, that is entirely up to you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I gladly talk with those who listen. As far as civility is concerned, one reaps what one sows. One can be civil on the surface, and a petulant child behind the words. For me, it is much more civil to lecture little the schoolchildren, so that they might grow up to be truly civil in the full meaning of the word. Whether you choose to let that comment to refer to you and your playmates, or not, is entirely up to you. The philosophy of discipline remains unchanged. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We do listen; however, most of the time we are not listened too and, like you correctly point out above, we receive no or little respect. I see you have "seen [our] work"; similarly, you have seen us on the drama boards. This begs the question: have you only warred and been disruptive here to initiate a long and laborious thread at ANI? Cassianto^Talk 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will answer your question with a question: Have you seen me file any requests at AN/I? What did I do the last time we "communicated" here on Holloway? I dropped the issue, looked at it from another perspective, and did not pursue it. In that one conversation, I learned a lot about your approach to the process. While I still think infoboxes are important - largely from a metadata and data mining perspective (allowing greater access to to data for more types of users, one of Wikipedia's stated goals) - it is not worth fighting with you. I have never brought anyone to the boards, except IP's making legal threats. I disagree with your approach to the articles you maintain your "stewardship" but I would not choose to drag my own name through the mud while slinging it at yours. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I try and steer clear of ANI as it's full of self serving and sycophantic arseholes most of the time. In terms of the stewardship; why the hell not? Have you seen the current state of Theatre Royal, Drury Lane? That is a prime example of what happens when the primary editors walk away and leave an FA to rot. Cassianto^Talk 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat that I like the way the articles you have contributed to have ended up, for the most part. You guys are better editors and authors than I am. My problem comes with the way you seem to automatically dismiss others' contributions, and an antagonistic approach to it. It could very well be warranted; this is a contentious place. It took me years before I decided to actually start to edit. It's a nasty place overall, with all kinds of negative personalities. Maybe I haven't given you guys a fair shake - but I felt bitten the one time we interacted. I was feeling that way again this morning. Some things seem simple - and the "birth place" for Holloway seems quite simple to me. It looked like blind reversions, coupled with tag-teaming. So, maybe it isn't, but from an outside view it looked that way. So, I will choose to apologize for my apparent incivility. I hope you will take a moment to try to look at it from my perspective, and maybe see that there there is a kernel of truth in my observation. Not all IP's are bad, and sometimes it may be possible that others' opinions are valid. It's an excellent article overall, and work that the contributors should be justifiably proud of. But maybe a tweak in one spot or another is not unwarranted. Fair enough? ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your praise and I'm honoured that you should find the articles on which I work so engaging (I'm sure Gavin will too). Let me clarify; I didn't and don't have a problem with the edit in general, and I would've been happy to discuss it per WP:BRD on the talk page. My problem was the constant reverting by both yourself and the IP. That is why I bit. I would be happy to consider implementing your edit as, in truth, I find it largely ok. In the body, we have explained that Manor Park was formally in Essex. Is it in the lead section that you would also like it clarified? Personally, I don't think the lead is the place for clarifications within parenthesis as it can become quite cluttered and make for some bumpy reading. I think the best thing is to discuss it, like adults, on the talk page so others can chip in and give their two penn'orth. Is that a worthy compromise? Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Melee

There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I trust you'll be posting this on your talk page too Lightbreather? Cassianto^Talk 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I’d assume he’s aware of it already, no? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Then why is he editing the article to then, faceless IP? Cassianto^Talk 21:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Block Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at National Rifle Association. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Mike V • Talk 22:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

bad block. Cassianto^Talk 08:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ScrapIronIV! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiat 130 HP, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Henry, Bore and Wheels. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you refuse to participate in discussing whether content is appropriate, then please refrain from edit-warring over it, as you seem to be doing at Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere. I posted to the Talk pages for both that and the main franchise article with my rationale. If you have rationale for opposing, then please do the same; otherwise, please leave it alone. Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A single reversion is not edit warring. I am more than willing to discuss; in fact, I had previously given my opinion on the talk page, as well as offering direction n where to find resources. I was quite surprised that you had decided to remove your own contributions. The source you had provided, while a non-english and primary source, was supported by blogs and fan sites. This may not be optimal, but it is adequate, particularly considering the subject. We are dealing with a series of video games, not the biography of a hero or the history of a piece of world-changing engineering. The availability of sources is dependent upon the importance of the subject. What we have is probably as good as is available. So, relax a bit, and offer information instead of stressing over it. This is an article about a series of video games on Wikipedia; no one will live or die based upon the inclusion of this trivial information on a trivial subject. Scr★pIron^IV 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Two reversions [1][2], both made without discussing it on Talk where I first proposed the edit you reverted. I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but it’s just frustrating to feel like I’m the only person making an effort to talk rather than just reverting, like I’m posing questions and making proposals only to be met with silent resistance. It’s not just this subject and it’s not just you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I will apologize for not being as communicative as I could have been. I had honestly thought the issue had been settled, and this particular article was not a high priority for me. I believe I only swung by because of a Third Opinion request. I do understand that some other editors have made things more difficult than they need to be. I meant well. The content you had added was valid, and a valuable contribution to the article. I just didn't want to see it lost, and restored it. As I said, it's not perfectly sourced, but reasonably so given the situation. Scr★pIron^IV 13:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Atlay (Tank)

Hello There is a Reason why I Have To Do these.And Malayaian Army Need More MBT.Don't Worry That Was A Good Blog.149.129.32.89 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia perspective, this is not a "good blog" - blogs are not a reliable source. Additionally, you need to read WP:CRYSTAL as the blog is only discussing the possibility of purchasing the tank. No order has been placed, and no decision has been made. The content is inappropriate to the article, and will be removed. Scr★pIron^IV 14:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please Don't Change It.No Need The Sources.I Think Is True.149.129.32.89 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a question of "truth" but rather one of verifiability. The information does not belong in the article, unless it is accompanied by verifiable, reliable, sources. I am not the only editor which has removed this information. Scr★pIron^IV 14:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See Malaysian Defences.149.129.32.89 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving this conversation to the article talk page Scr★pIron^IV 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Russian Air Forces

Hello,There is a Reason Why I Like The Older Picture Because The Current Photo That Unknown Number Was Vandilisme.You Can Change The Imformation Of The Russian Air Forces But The Photos are Can't Change And It's Very Nice Pictures.Kornet GSR (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The photos have been reverted to images with more appropriate visuals and representative camouflage schemes per the Manual of Style. Please review the appropriate policies, and discuss it on the Talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I will stop but Please Don't Change The Fighter Aircraft Photo.But other Aircraft Is only Can.OkKornet GSR (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is to keep this set of photos. You are in violation of WP:3RR and multiple editors have agreed which photos are to be included, and why. Scr★pIron^IV 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

NRA lead

Regarding this edit - [3] - it is your only edit to the NRA article,[4] and you've made zero edits to the talk page.[5] Might I ask, how did you come to make this edit? Lightbreather (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) WP:OWNERSHIP --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The same way any editor finds something in an article that could use modification. I came across it, examined it, and made a decision. Might I ask, do you grill every editor on their purposes for editing Wikipedia? Scr★pIron^IV 15:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask about your purpose for editing Wikipedia; I asked how you came to edit National Rifle Association. Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck does it have to do with you Lightbreather? Cassianto^Talk 17:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It amounts to the same thing. Everyone has their individual interests, and yet the only article I have created was on a subject I knew absolutely nothing about. I came across a red link, and decided someone needed to create the article. I generally stay away from controversial topics, but I watch some of those pages anyway. I have had some input to the Gun Show Loophole article - at least in discussion, and I know I provided my opinion on a suggested image. Was this particular edit problematic for some reason? Scr★pIron^IV 17:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Zayat

@Montanabw: The final sentence in this GA could use a little twesking; when I retuen from my (probably warranted) block, would you accept a revision? The sentence seems a bit run-on, and all descendants "range in age" - without specifying age, the construction sounds odd to my ears. I would not modify a newly recognized GA without discussing it with the submitter. Scr★pIron^IV 05:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You meant the last sentence of the lead? I see your concern there, the deal is figuring out how to note that the eldest son runs part of the business and working in that horses get named after family members. Maybe propose a rewording here or at talk? Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As I can do nothing elsewhere until my block has expired, perhaps we can discuss it here? Scr★pIron^IV 05:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You are quite responsive to suggestions :-) Your most recent edit resolves my issues on the subject. For what it is wirth, I think you have done a very good job on that article. Scr★pIron^IV 05:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I would send you thanks for that change, but even that simple expression is denied me for another 15 hours. Scr★pIron^IV 06:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Luckily the ping works. You're welcome and thanks for pointing out an awkwardness that needed to be fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Obit

Please read the OBIT. You can also see the Death Certificate. Additional refs. Can we correct that?

Thanks Bob

@Wa3pxx: I would love to read the obituary, and the death certificate. The trouble is that there are multiple competing sources - let's take it to the Talk Page Talk:Henry Lincoln Johnson as there are more editors who would weigh in. In the meantime, do not restore the change again, per WP:BRD the change has been challenged, and we need to discuss it before it goes back in. Scr★pIron^IV 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pykrete

I'm not sure how you don't believe "notably" isn't editorializing. I'd like to direct your attention to WP:EDITORIAL. "Notably" is the first example given as editorializing. It's editorializing because it's stating an opinion about something without attributing that opinion to someone. Pishcal — ♣ 12:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your pointing that out. I find it interesting that by default, something must be notable to even appear in an encyclopedia. Thus, I see that term as less notable than others might. I have run into similar disagreements over terminology such as "innovative" - both terms are simple and minimally descriptive in definition, with a very narrow focus. Others choose to connote meanings outside of the simple definition. It is all in how each individual reads those words, and the meanings they impart on them from their experience. Personally, I would prefer to keep denotative definitions, as there is no way to fully remove the individual reader's experience from the equation. Trying to do so would make a dry reading indeed. Scr★pIron^IV 13:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In that scenario "notably" isn't referring to the subject of the article, it's referring to a property of the subject. I don't see how looking at "notably" through a denotative definition or a connotative definition changes anything. It's still an impartial tone, and I don't see how saying "including" rather than "notably" detracts from a reader's experience. Pishcal — ♣ 16:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pishcal, the essay - and it is only that, an essay and not a rule - you point to contains the line "should usually be avoided". It is not written in stone and words like "notable" can be used in certain situations. In fact, some featured articles currently use them without little justification. Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, WP:WORDS is a guideline and part of the manual of style. While I agree that it should not be followed to the words, in that scenario there was no reason to not have it, because it was editorializing. I didn't see the text and think "Oh, that's a violation of WP:EDITORIAL", I saw the text and thought, "Oh, that's editorializing." Only when it was reverted did I look for the section of the manual of style that supported my removal of it. Pishcal — ♣ 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Portugal not a democracy?

Excuse me but if Portugal its not a democracy then there arent democracies in Europe. Its a democratic parliamentary republic beyond any doubt. If your concept of democracy doesnt aply to Portugal it does aply to Wikipedia: [6]. Regards.78.29.161.216 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As ScrapIronIV suggests, why don't you read WP:CRYSTAL. Once you have done so, then come back and engage in a discussion. Cassianto^Talk 17:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation (to work)

Hello ScrapIronIV, I have noticed that you are concerned about Waverley Line. You are cordially invited to constructively contribute to User:KlausFoehl/Borders Railway‎ if you wish so. If you prefer to keep working on Waverley Line, I'll be happy about that as well.--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —Darkwind (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ScrapIronIV (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I scrupulously avoided the bright line of 3RR. I do know and understand the rules, and stopped when I reached the line. I did not even report the issue; I had stopped and was willing to be "wrong" - despite the fact that my edits were to restore consensus. The reasoning states "You have been blocked from editing to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war." There is nothing to be prevented; correct those who break the rules and reward those who strive to maintain their composure and stick to the rules. I may not be perfect, but I am here to contribute. What purpose does it serve to have rules, if they are not to be followed? Scr★pIron^IV 21:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You can be blocked for edit warring and not go over 3RR. In future use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(TPS): The other party in this thing's competence is pretty doubtful, and ScrapIron didn't violate 3RR. I think a block is overkill. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If I have any stalkers...

There is a bit of vandalism which has been hanging around here[7] for the past few hours. Part of it was fixed, but not all of it. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 17:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Learning lessons

I am definitely learning a lesson here. I just don't think I am learning the lesson that I am learning is the one that is intended.

Thus far, I have learned that the admin corps can not tell the difference between those who wish to contribute quality content, and those who want to push a POV. I have also learned that there is no respect for rules, and the decision to apply those rules actually based upon the rules themselves. Another quality lesson is that admins can do no wrong, unless the rank and file editors rise up in a great voice and make their feelings known.

I will not contest this block further, and will make no more edits until the block has expired. But let's see if I lose my talk page access for sharing the lessons that they teach me. Scr★pIron^IV 01:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Pooja Kumar

You're going to need far better sources than that one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely; let's discuss. I have offered two for the year of birth, and one for actual date. May I ask what will satisfy the requirement? ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft

Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem Editor

I just put an AIV report on the editor. I suspect it to be a sockpuppet of a problem editor based on the terms they keep telling folks to search for (types of fans). User_talk:David_Beals is the problem editor in question; they have a history of spamming pages with ceiling fan pictures. Crboyer (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I can't believe I fell for a fourth reversion. A rookie mistake, but I am a rookie when it cones to vandals. Scr★pIron^IV 04:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

About the FreedomPop Article

Why would a Forum not be a reliable source when FreedomPop acknowledged they were throttling users there? I find my undo of the article is unfair. Read the information before doing changes -_-

Perhaps you should read WP:RS and then find an acceptable source to report this information. Scr★pIron^IV 22:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is reliable since FreedomPop wrote there for its users. Do you work for them? Is this a Damage Control thing? Please please inform yourself before doing changes to an article when I am telling the truth in the criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.229.238 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia's guidelines. Improperly sourced content will be removed. I have no issue with the content you have proposed, if you can support it with a reliable source. Scr★pIron^IV 22:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Because you are not a user of FreedomPop and you are not experiencing the frustration other users have, or you are a user who doesn't care about a possible FCC intervention with them for providing "unlimited" data but with throttling in place, but not, they call unlimited 1gb plan. Is 1gb unlimited? no. Well, the content should be public to let our readers know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.229.238 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I expect you to QUIT undoing my comments without cause

ScrapIronIV, you have NO right to undue my edits to a page by saying you are doing it because I am citing my own experience. Name one better source for a fact than that. If you can't -- undue your undue of my edit. ArchAngle01 (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not without cause. I have left you a welcome message on your talk page, and I hope you will read the relevant sections on what constitute reliable sources for an encyclopedia. You may also want to review the sections on edit warring and collaborative editing. As I have said repeatedly, there is no issue with the content you wish to add, so long as you find a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's standards. Comments on a forum do not meet that standard. Scr★pIron^IV 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Provision for first hand experience are common in encyclopedias. As it is those first hand experienced that create an encyclopedia in the first place. Would it please you for me to post the 50 odd emails I have received from technical support verifying what I've said, or would you prefer that I post pictures of the ads FreedomPop used to sell their plans, and then post speed test of my FreedomPop connection proving they were throttling the connection to a speed lower than what is commonly accepted by FCC & FTC. How about an email from the FCC letting me know that they have contacted FreedomPop and have required them to reply within 30 day with an explanation of their throttling of my 3G speed. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, well the forum are reliable published sources, as are the individuals that are currently fighting this battle with FreedomPop, whom you are aiding, for that I am sure. Tell me what you want, and I'll provide it so that you can no longer block honest criticism of FreedomPop. ArchAngle01 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah this might also help you in making the correct decision. From Wikipedia: What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) The creator of the work (for example, the writer) The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)

As I am the writer of the information provided, my experience is also the source, therefor I am considered the source, as well as the publisher, as these are my experiences and as there is nothing to the contrary I am also reliable. Not every thing has been paper published - you have NO RIGHT to determine what publication is acceptable, unless you can provide proof that the sources provide are false -- Can you? ArchAngle01 (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been polite, and tried to explain policy to you, and to direct you to the appropriate pages where you can learn how we do things here. Now I will kindly request that you take any further discussion on this topic to the article's talk page. Please stop posting to my talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 01:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry as I have started pursuing other source for a solution - I'm sure you will be hearing from them soon. Thanks for your inflexibility. ArchAngle01 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Antonio deoliveira Salazar cousin in sao miguel

Does anyone know if it is true that Salazar had a cousin Joao Carlos Deoliveira that live in Santa Barbara sao Miguel? I was told that he is related and Joao Carlos' brother helped with bringing the exiled priests from Portugal to Sao Miguel when the Freemasons ruled Portugal and forcing Christianity out of portugal Cesar2112 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cesar2112: I don't have any knowledge of this, but I will check with someone I trust to know. If I find anything, i will let you know. Scr★pIron^IV 19:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

You have reverted my edit on Yahya article, on the ground that name predates ideology. While this might be true in other cases, here it is not. Arabs had two different names, the other variant for John was already in use. Yahya variant came with Islam and with a particular religious etymology (see the comment I left on John the Baptist talkpage). Arabs still have another name for John, unused, but Yahya is an Islamic name, which means it is also a Persian, Indonesian etc. name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This exceptional claim would require a source to back it up. Until that has been provided, the claim can not be restored. ScrapIronIV (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not exceptional claim. If you cared reading the list of names below, on that page, you will see that Persians do use that name. That the name came for the first time in the Qu'ran is known by anyone who know basic Islam. See here: http://islamic-awarness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/yahya.html

You will see on that page, that the name was used specifically to refer to him, there was no such name prior to Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether that is a reliable source, never mind an exceptional source, is something I will leave to others for now. In the meantime, if you wish to discuss it, it belongs on the article's talk page, not on mine. Scr★pIron^IV 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you made the changes to Hajra's name and made in to Hajar whereas if you look into the story of Ibraheem AS then you'll know muslims spell it Hajra not Hajar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.65.138 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Re; John Grimek

Have a look at Crisco's talk page and let us know what you think when you're able. We hope (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Jim Butterworth (politician)

This page contains a tremendous amount of opinion and false information. The page is definitely libelous and was created, without question, by one or more disgruntled former employees of the Georgia National Guard. One former employee lives in Washington, DC and the libelous edits show the anonymous IP address to be from that area. It is unfair, and probably constitutes libel, for this page to be displayed on Wikipedia. It is therefore against the Wikipedia Terms of Use and should be reverted to content displayed prior to the unscrupulous edits which have been made by this individual. I have not spoken with the individual to whom this page is directed, but I'm positive he would agree with these assertions. From the Wkipedia page on defamation: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation as well as other various kinds of defamation that retaliate against groundless criticism." This page, which you are contrbuting to, has a number of defamatory statements. You should seek to correct for factual info, as wikipedia requires, as opposed to restoring defamatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.192.219.6 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have examined the sources present in the article, and the content appears properly sourced. Do you have a WP:COI conflict of interest that you would like to disclose before we continue discussion? Scr★pIron^IV 18:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Orange-spotted grouper revert

I noticed you reverted this. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the main issue was not spamming (although this editor was a notorious spammer with several socks), but that the info was inaccurate. If this was not entirely clear from my edit summary, my mistake. It can be summed up like this:

Habitat: Brackish water and Salt water (unnecessary repeat as already evident from section just above -- seas are salt and esturies are brackish)

Dispersion: Andaman Sea (incorrect, far more widespread as already described in the article).

Utilization: Fishery: Trade, Aquaculture: Trade (first part correct, second incorrect)

So, we're basically down to a 5-word subsection containing a repeat, an incorrect subsection, and a subsection that would consist of 2 words if the inaccurate info is removed. And here I'm disregarding the other issues that were part of the User:Pi-gimjiRu edits (I'm not sure if it ever was established for certain if all his edits were WP:COPYVIO [translation of copy-and-paste from thaibiodiversity] or it was his own page and everything was WP:COI→ see e.g. this and related discussions on WP:AN that resulted in the eventual bans). Regards, 62.107.223.12 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, and appreciate the clarification. The summary did not address the content removal. If you wish to delete those sections, I will not contest it again. Scr★pIron^IV 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Adam Nagourney

Can you please explain the removal of the following factual from the Adam Nagourney page:

The article has been described as "..quite simply wrong.." and "insensitive and inaccurate" by the current Irish Ambassador to United States, Anne Anderson (diplomat) - ref and as an example of where "..journalists reached for the lazy tabloid stereotype and heaped deliberate injustice on top of the most awful grief.", with the letter ending "Shame on you." by the former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese ref -

@Editor268: In short, the content you are attempting to include adds undue weight to the article. As it has been challenged by multiple editors, it may not be included without consensus. Please take this discussion to the article's Talk Page. Scr★pIron^IV 21:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Surly the statement of a sitting Ambassador and the Forbes 64th most powerful women is important relevant, do these peoples opinion's cause weight? The world is not just the US. The New York Times is a paper of international record. Editor268 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Editor268: The point is that it adds undue weight to the content of the article, not that their opinions are unimportant. Please read WP:UNDUE as I have recommended previously, and remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Putting too much emphasis on a single event in a biographical entry is not warranted, and could be seen as a violation of WP:BLP. Please read the comments other people offer to you. Read the articles at the links you have been given. And then, as I have stated before - multiple times - please take this discussion to the article's talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 21:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO I still think the apology is not in context without understanding what forced it. Regardless, Thanks, I will educate myself before doing more. Editor268 (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Mafia Capitale

Please you don't move we have a lots of sources.

If you have sources, they must be presented. Scr★pIron^IV 15:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If we can add in the article!!! if you can give the time to write and add sources !!!!!!! see there - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33009027 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.54.242 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As stated previously, there are WP:BLP issues in play here. The additions have made serious allegations, and have not included adequate sourcing. Please read the appropriate guidelines. Scr★pIron^IV 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add to Long Eaton

Hello please can you add the following text to long eaton's wiki page. Im not sure what i am doing wrong so instead of trying to add it myself i thought maybe an experienced user like yourself should add it :)

Along with Long Eaton's Brass band, Long Eaton also has its very own marching carnival band. Formed in 1971 by a group of talented musicians the Long Eaton Militaires Marching Carnival Band was born, its aim was to bring friendship through music. The band has twinned with over 21 global bands and has very strong connections with one in particular. The 1. Große Karnevalsgesellschaft "Völl-Freud" 1929 e.V. Tanz- und Fanfarencorps. Both bands share an iconic piece of music which has been wrote for them in particular. Friendship through music. Along with the connections made with the German band 1. Große Karnevalsgesellschaft "Völl-Freud" 1929 e.V. Tanz- und Fanfarencorps the Long Eaton Militaires has had the chance to be able to perform in front of royalty across the globe both in the UK and in China. Their uniforms are something that you cannot miss; red, white and blue, they are very iconic but with a modern and eye catching twist. The upbeat musical arrangements along with the arena display skills keep any audience engaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.198.194 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason why this has been removed - by multiple editors - is that is is promotional content that does not include a reliable source. Feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page, but as it is written it stands little chance of being included. What you really need to do is to find a reliable source that mentions the band, and write about it in a neutral tone. Then it could be considered. Scr★pIron^IV 13:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Right okay thank you for your help would www.longeatonmilitaires.co.uk be a reliable source to gather the information from? Im very new to this please excuse my understanding of Wikipedia. If it is not I would be extremely grateful if you could find someone to enter a piece about the band82.153.198.194 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That website would be considered a primary source and would be of limited value. You should read about reliable sources for use here. Yuo need to find an article that someone has written about them, and include the information from that article into a section on this band. Scr★pIron^IV 14:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah right okay, now that makes scene. Im assuming that this is because the website could be biased. Thank you for your help one last thing, what do you put if some of the knowledge is from the president of the organisation. Im assuming that it can not be included because again their views may be biased 82.153.198.194 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a potential bias issue. Primary soources are sometimes good for factual data, but need to be avoided where possible. If you are getting information directly from your own communication with an individual at an organization, then that is considered original research which is also not permitted. The important thing to keep in mind is verifiablility - as an encyclopedia, what is included here is information that anyone should be able to verify through research. Now, if this individual is the president, perhaps they could point you to some articles that have been written about the band. Such individuals often keep newspaper articles and other resources. Scr★pIron^IV 14:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Future proof “Josh”

Apologies. I thought I was reverting vandalism to Future proof from 114.134.5.79. My bad. Thanks for the assist. That IP has been reported as well. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that; I figured it was in error. I appreciate your attention to the matter! Scr★pIron^IV 02:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@SpyMagician: You have been around longer than I have, and I am trying to do a decent job here - perhaps you would permit some occasional requests for input/assistance? Nobody is perfect, and the past six months have been quite rocky. Scr★pIron^IV 02:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am honored you would look to me for advice. But basically, my rule of thumb is this: There are only like 4-5 articles I truly feel I should care and nurture. Unless your full time job is Wikipedia—and mine is not—4-5 articles you focus on is the best balance. Other stuff I do is vandalism patrol and that’s basically common sense and knowing how to react. If you feel you need assistance, feel free to ask on my talk page. But also, learn about tools such as the administrator intervention against vandalism board as well as the edit warring area. The vast majority of people who edit Wikipedia have good intentions, so it’s only the real clowns that can’t be reasoned with. Good luck! --SpyMagician (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Mafia Capitale

This shit bot does not understand that the site http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Mafia_Capitale copied the article from Wikipedia !!! Manox81 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mafia Capitale. ' Manox81 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Manox81: I won't, particularly as that article has now been appropriately deleted from the encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 16:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, some additional research would reveal that the site CorenSearchBot identified is a wikipedia mirror, so there's no copyvio going on (unless it's being copied from Italian which doesn't seem to be the case at a glance via Google Translate, although I can't rule it out). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. This is, unfortunately, not the only issue with the article - I see that you have removed the WP:BLP violations. This article has been speedy-deleted twice in the last day, and had been recreated (again) with exactly the same content. Scr★pIron^IV 18:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting that there's some pushing going on and a problem with WP:NOTGETTINGIT, but I'm thinking there might be something salvageable in the article, so I'm going to keep an eye on it and see how it develops now that it's been stubbified. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It does not help that the history has been full of IP edit warring, and unkind words being passed. I am looking into the sources (see new entry on the talk page) and I hope that something decent can come of it. So far, I am not finding the sources matching up with the stated content. Scr★pIron^IV 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Zaky Mallah

Remember, Just because an IP editor is making a large removal (eg. at Zaky Mallah), doesn't mean that it is vandalism. Just remember to always read through the diff, even if no reason is given (in this case, the material removed is obviously a BLP vio). This isn't a telling off - I did look through your contributions, and they look great - just a reminder to keep up the good work and not fall into the speed pitfall! Mdann52 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I did notice after you reverted me, and looked closer at it. I appreciate you letting me know. Scr★pIron^IV 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Re 2015 Pakistani heat wave: really?

"Restoring sourced content"? I didn't remove any sourced content (apart from a sentence or two about global warming which were out of scope of this article); my edits were mostly copyediting. That's not a valid reason for reversion. 73.133.12.111 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The stated underlying cause of the heatwave was a sourced statement. Whether I agree with the statement or not, section blanking of sourced content is not appropriate. Scr★pIron^IV 16:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't blank the section; look closer at the diff. I moved it down and renamed it, since the cause of the heat wave isn't "background". 73.133.12.111 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that I was in error. The copy does read better since your edit - you did a fine job with it, and I hope you continue. Scr★pIron^IV 16:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks, and thanks for being gracious enough to admit a mistake. 73.133.12.111 (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI...

...but I already warned that IP, but it just blanked the warning. Expect the same for your warning. Dustin (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; it is becoming an interesting day. Vandals are out in force. Scr★pIron^IV 19:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Zaky Mallah

Do you know what the story with this page is, and what edits were made that were so terrible that it needed protecting and hiding?Tuntable (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

During a vandalism patrol, I had restored unexplained content blanking, and the content I restored was controversial. There is some significant controversy over claimed association with terrorist groups, of which I was unaware. Whether he is associated with such groups or not is not what I am addressing here in my comments, merely that I was restoring content which had been blanked by an IP editor without explanation. It has become controversial enough that even my restoration of that information has been revdeled. I am sorry that I do not have more information to offer. Scr★pIron^IV 02:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

More sources?

If needed, I can add more sources. --109.60.45.52 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide appropriate sources, and adhere to a neutral POV. Scr★pIron^IV 16:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Just did. --109.60.45.52 (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Laurie Patton

Hi ok, it didn't seem to be working, your AFD page so I recreated and made a new one seems to be working now,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurie_Patton best wishes. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

What are you saying to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumigu (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fürstenberg

Please, dont fight I am working. What content could be regarded as defamatory!? --91.10.41.9 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly not figthing, merely stewarding these changes. One can not change the nationality or religion of a living person without providing specific sources for the changes. Scr★pIron^IV 17:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are. Don’t be so aggressive. I just finished her memoir, The Woman I Wanted to Be and I am working on that article...

• I provided a ref for "Sephardim" - Please read: "Her mother’s family, Sephardim originally from Salonika, spoke Ladino at home" → http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/186760/diane-von-furstenburg-tidbits

• And for "Ashkenazi" - Please read: Leon Halfin, is an Ashkenazi Jew from Kishinev → http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2009/09/diane-von-furstenburg.html --91.10.41.9 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Providing those sources in the article would have been a start; without them, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Please provide the appropriate source when you add the information. Doing otherwise will cause difficulties, as unsourced information on living persons is a violation of policy. Additionally, you have changed the nationality of an entire family line from "German" to "Austro-Italian" - again, without a source. Such edits will be challenged - and reverted - unless a definitive source is provided. Scr★pIron^IV 18:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that article has just too many ridiculous formulations. The Fürstenberg (princely family) was from the Holy Roman Empire. Egon von Fürstenberg was Austro-(Austria-Hungary)-Italian. Please keep calm, don’t be so aggressive. I can not edit as fast as you do.--91.10.41.9 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm. While I may speak forthrightly, it is conservation of words, not aggression. The important part for you to hear is this: If you add unreferenced and contentious material about a living person, it will be reverted. To avoid this, provide a source at the same time you are publishing information about that living person. Easy as pie. If you fail to do that, then chances are you will get reverted. Scr★pIron^IV 18:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are rude! And I am not the first writing it ;-)--91.10.41.9 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I will choose to be so rude as to demand that you leave my talk page, and never return. I have that right. There is no need to respond; if you have any other concerns, take them to the article's talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 19:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mango:Why you reverted my edits

I noticed that you have reverted twice my edits into Mango such as commonly known as the king of fruits in Pakistan , India, Bangladesh, and Sindh & Punjab provinces of Pakistan) ,

Mirpur Khas Sindh is famous for Sindhri Mango

, and here Andalusia, Spain (mainly in Málaga province), as its coastal subtropical climate is one of the few places in mainland Europe that allows the growth of tropical plants and fruit trees. The Canary Islands are another notable Spanish producer of the fruit. Other cultivators include North America (in South Florida and California's Coachella Valley), South and Central America, the Caribbean, Hawai'i, south, west, and central Africa, Australia, China, Pakistan (mainly in Mirpur Khas district of province of Sindh ). Can you plz explain what is wrong in above edits? I have just put links of the articles and put more information as well. kindly do not revert it again.--Jogi don (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The issues were overlinking and the addition of trivial information, as well as incorrect links and WP:NPOV. I am not the only one reverting your edits to this article. Questions about such things belong on the article's talk page, not on mine. Scr★pIron^IV 12:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Jan Schakowsky

I'd like to respectfully suggest that you may have thrown the baby out with the bath water re: the Schakowsky edits. In particular, adding headings for each paragraph--each of those was either an already-existing direct quote from the paragraph below it or a brief summary. They are no more promotional than what has already been approved, and less biased than the headings that current exist.

I also think that the clarification regarding the bias of author Caroline Glock, which was sourced via a 3rd party nonprofit, may have been hastily removed with some of the other content.

If you disagree with me about these issues, could you explain what the specific issues are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:9800:212B:286D:5F2C:57BB (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just realized this should go on the page's talk page. Moving it over there, sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:9800:212B:286D:5F2C:57BB (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Colleen page

You asked for sources and then when I provided it you said I was disruptive? That's rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

When you delete the responder's comments, then yes, you are being disruptive. Scr★pIron^IV 19:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Please explain your reversion of a minor edit. You justified removing the partial description of James Dunn as a "Christian preacher" by referring to WP:UNDUE. Explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:8DEE:A95:6941:3403 (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You already know why, and the fact that you are asking here (and not on the article's talk page) is an indication of the POV you are trying to push. Scr★pIron^IV 13:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You give me too much credit; I actually don't know why. Until reading your response, I assumed it was easily explained. Now I'm suspicious.

How does describing a Christian preacher as a Christian preacher give that person undue weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.105.46 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

His notability is as a scholar and theologian. Four degrees, two of them doctorates, and seventeen books to his credit. As a side not, he happens to be a lay preacher. How is that NOT WP:UNDUE to add it when his name is mentioned? It is yet another attempt to dicredit scholars because of their faith. Any further discussion can be taken to the talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 14:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I would never have thought of being identified as a Christian preacher as discreditation. Thank you for the insight. My curiosity is satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.105.46 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Polite advice

It's not nice to taunt other editors who are unable to reply normally to Wikipedia business. Your comment on M.srihari's talk page was rude and incivil. Each editor is responsibile for their own edits (and conduct. I've already issued the same advice to M.srihari and expect you to adhere to the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia as well. Hasteur (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you saw it that way. I wished to respond in a place where he could also see - that I believe this is a good close of the DRN, and that there was no dispute without the constant POV push. That is not a taunt, it was simple input written neutrally, supporting the decision to close. Scr★pIron^IV 17:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

BP Page

Hi, I'm in the process of sourcing the BP page and references are forthcoming. Thanks for helping out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.137.214 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The content being added to that page is clearly promotional in nature, and unless it is rewritten in a neutral tone, then it is likely to be reverted again. Scr★pIron^IV 20:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ideas?

Sigh. What to do? 32.218.35.156 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just revert when we see it, or report to AIV. They are not responding to messages. For now, we seem to be keeping the appropriate version up more often than not. Scr★pIron^IV 12:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyfraud

Hello! When you revert changes on an article, can you at least check to make sure the citations are up to date and the reference matches the source webpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.225.29 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. As for the article; it would be improved by the addition of the historical change to copyfraud, rather than simply deleting sourced content. Add the data and provide your source for the change. Scr★pIron^IV 19:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson

Hello. I wanted to talk about my recent edits. Regarding my changing him saying, "because he may run," to, "because of the chance that he would run," is that it's no longer correct to say he "may run." Saying he did something because he may run, as far as I can see, makes it sound as if he isn't running yet.

And regarding enlarging his quotation on evolution, could we at least enlarge it to, "Those of us who believe in God and derive our sense of right and wrong and ethics from God’s word really have no difficulty whatsoever defining where our ethics come from. People who believe in survival of the fittest might have more difficulty deriving where their ethics come from. A lot of evolutionists are very ethical people"? It better explains the distinction he makes. Thanks! —The Sackinator (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@The Sackinator: Thank you for the message. Perhaps "because he was considering running" would fit better for both of us. And I see no issue with the quote you have suggested. It is concise, and reads well. Have a great day! Scr★pIron^IV 12:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

All right! That sounds good! —The Sackinator (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Offering eyes

I noticed your request for eyes, regarding Fiat 130 HP. That's a nice looking article, good layout and at-a-glance information, precise short lead with a time. You may want to add a place there for those who don't know Fiat but might argue that they would not be interested in the article anyway. I could do without "true" in "a true champion".

I made minor changes with explanation in the edit summaries. Please replace all "bare urls" by a minimum of title and publisher (as now in the external link), adding date and author where available, and an accessdate if not a book. Happy racing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much; I will try to include your suggestions. I do not yet know how to add an accessdate, but will learn. I had chosen the word "true" because Fiat had not yet had a real winning design before the introduction of the 130 HP - if you know a better way to express that, I am open to suggestions. Perhaps eliminating the word altogether will still convey the idea. I really do appreciate your looking it over! ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"true": Keeping things simple is my personal thing, not a rule ;) - I copied projects from 12 HP which seems a decent model to follow, I also added the new one to the navbox at the bottom (which you can edit by clicking on the little "e" in the upper left corner). I will add today's date as an accessdate to one ref, feel free to copy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you see what I see: if you fix all refs as you started and have one at the end of each paragraph, the article is eligible for the DYK (Did you know?) section of the Main page. I will nominate, you watch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of that - there is still a lot about the workings of Wikipedia that I do not know; I have only recently begun to gain a little confidence and started to edit a bit more. I have certainly made my missteps along the way! I will try to get the rest of the refs fixed tomorrow; I am getting a DNS error on a couple at the moment. I have yard work to do tonight... funny how the real world interferes :-D Thank you again for all of your help! ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, you are doing fine. For DYK, you have a week after creation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda. I have left you some comments on the talk page. Just thread your responses underneath each comment as you go. If you disagree with any of them, don't worry, I won't "bite" :) Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Recently reverted GHW Bush edit.

As suggested in the notes to my recent (minor) change to the entry on U.S. 41st President Bush, my intent was to de-clutter the passage's phrasing. A careful read should reveal that Bill Clinton is referenced at the close of the paragraph preceding the phrasing in question -- in whole-named fashion -- less than two lines prior the repeat reference to the U.S. 42nd President. Removing the gentleman's given name is merely an attempt to redact redundancy and stave off (re-)statement of the obvious. But thanks for your effort, whatever its intent.

Cheers, {User talk: Rande M Sefowt}

I do understand your point, and appreciate your perspective. With a different Clinton being more in the public eye at the present time, I believe the previous wording is more appropriate for now. Under different circumstances, I would have left it be. Scr★pIron^IV 18:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good. Cheers, and thanks again. {User talk: Rande M Sefowt}

Yu-Gi-Oh! ARC-V

All of the information I put was from episode 63 and all of it was real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4001:DC9B:3412:4941:EB80:A636 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What is "real" is immaterial. What you need is a reliable source AND it needs to be non-trivial information. Your constant IP hopping and re-adding unsourced material could lead to blocking. Scr★pIron^IV 14:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

well why don't you just watch the episode then if its so immaterial then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4001:DC9B:3412:4941:EB80:A636 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and is not built on viewers watching episodes. It is built upon what reliable sources say about notable issues. The trivial contributions you are adding to a list article amouont to original research and are not permitted. Perhaps you would be better off writing a blog, and performing reviews of the shows you watch. It could be a positive use for your energies. Scr★pIron^IV 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I was updating the page with new info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4001:DC9B:3412:4941:EB80:A636 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Fannin Innovation Studio page

Dear ScrapIronIV,

Thanks for the quick response. I do not want to make the content look like it is promotional in nature, but I do want to point out that FIS is Houston's single biggest biomedical incubator with a unique business model with multiple references in media outlets, and probably worthy of a Wiki entry. The barebones entry was marked as a stub and flagged for not enough references from mainstream media. Accordingly, I tried to enrich the content sufficiently to address those concerns. However, from your rejection of those changes, I see that it was deemed 'promotional'. Since I seem to be unable to please the Wiki editors, can I ask for a more detailed response pointing out which areas were considered promotional, and I can provide additional references to those sections.

Thanks,

Dev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.62.130 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. The appropriate place to use would be the article's talk page to discuss specific items. I have left a welcome message on your user page, and would recommend that you read through the articles presented there. Additionally, you need to familiarize yourself withthe articles on reliable sources, neutral point of view and conflict of interest. I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have, and there are other good editors who are more than willing to help out. Scr★pIron^IV 21:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Eye Candy

I initially made the changes to the Eye Candy page because the information provided on the character descriptions should be placed in the episode synopses (this reason was provided in my first edit). In addition to this, it is a plain spoiler to those who are curious about the show and want to check out the general wikipedia entry before starting. Why the person - who added the spoiler plot details - insisted it shouldn't be removed is beyond me, but it doesn't seem very courteous to readers (even if they didn't want to watch the show). Point is, the parts I edited out should be placed on in the episode synopses (located in the list of Eye Candy episodes page) - not the character descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.140.133 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the note I added about Bolin's status? I'll take that as a no. It is explicitly written "Do not remove Bolin's status. Doing so will result in reverting. Please find a valid and qualified argument for the removal of this section OTHER THAN IT'S A SPOILER FOR OTHERS OR YOU. Per WP:Spoilers, it states "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Sorry, my friend, this remains. That information is descriptions of the characters from the show. Whether you consider it a spoiler or not, it remains per those guidelines. If you revert again, I will report you for WP:3RR as you have reverted the content twice already. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 17:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Caledonia, Wisconsin

Please read this 32.218.36.92 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm RobertsBiology. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, World Transplant Games, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. RobertsBiology (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Change to SWCHA Page

Hello SprapIronIV

I see that you pulled an entire section off of the SWCHA page. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and do not understand why this was done. The page had a number of errors and I was attempting to correct them. The addition of the Former Athletes section was a work in process - until you removed it. Thank you in advance for enlightening me. At this point I am ready to simply remove the page and give up on the effort. The Redlamb (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia. The trouble with that section was that it was unsourced, and was a list of non-notable individuals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a directory. I will place a welcome message on your personal talk page with links to the appropriate policies and guidelines that we follow to determine what warrants inclusion here, and the processes we follow to ensure that we include the appropriate citations and sources. I will look closer at the SWCHA page, and help you determine if it is even notable enough in itself to have a page of its own. Please understand that I am more than happy to assist, but often editors who are particularly close to a subject are not the best editors to create those articles. To start, I would recommend you read the links to notability, conflict of interest, and reliable sources. Scr★pIron^IV 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response. I guess you are right. Even though this organization ad its members are a significant part of my life - I suppose that the entire thing is "non-notable". Sorry to have thought otherwise. The Redlamb (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Schools and athletics are important parts of society, and I am certain if you look for sources you would be able to put something together. I think deleting nearly all content could be an overreaction. A quick search turned up the following article at WIsports.com [8] which, when combined with others, could make a good start. Find a half dozen or more mentions in the media, and write on what has been reported by the media. That is what we do here. Certainly I (and many other good editors here) would be willing to assist. Scr★pIron^IV 17:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

.MKM Is Also Air Superiority Fighter.

Mr Scrapiron,Im Not Fonte De Regaz and Im need To Combine To MKM Can Be Single and Need To Called and Multirole Air Superiority Fighter.I Hope You Will Understand.175.136.111.225 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If I have any page stalkers, this is a sock of blocked user Fonte de Regaz, and needs to be dealt with. Please see this [9] and his blanking of the report here [10] Scr★pIron^IV 13:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not Liying to me.I Need To Combine Multirole Air Superiority Fighter.Please and Don't Mention Name Fonte De Regaz cause he wasn't Apered it.175.136.111.225 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr Scrapiron,Do You Aggred with Me And I Need To Combine Air Superiority Fighter ok.175.136.111.225 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that you and all of your sock accounts need to be site banned and hard blocked from Wikipedia. That is all I agree to. Scr★pIron^IV 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Thank you for your message. Calling the French National Day "Bastille Day" is a complete non sense, every French person with a minimum of culture will tell you that. It's not because a lot of English speakers (even journalists) use that expression that it means it must be the truth. You ask for reliable sources, you can find them in every serious book of modern French History. Could you please put back the few changes I tried to make on the page, you will make a very good point and bring knowledge to so many people ignorant of what exactly the French 14th of July is about. Merci beaucoup. ADMcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.245.167 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am a chemistry Professor making edits to non-stoichimetric solids...

Please wait until I am done to decide if the edits are non-constructive. Please. AGF. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Inserting comments into the article, such as "WHO WROTE THIS, AND WHERE ITS REQUIRED SOURCING?" is not constructive. Use your sandbox while preparing such edits, so that you do not disrupt the active article. In the meantime, I am reverting to its former state. If you are a professor, then you will understand. Scr★pIron^IV 19:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The article contained—before I arrived—long sections of deleted material, appearing as "in-markup notes" that were not moved to Talk, and therefore untraceable as to who it was that deleted the material, and why they did so. Adding "WHO WROTE THIS..." in such cases is the only way to try to determine where this material came from, and if it is at all usable.

Otherwise, in expressing your anger over this one of tens of discreet edits by an en masse reversion, you also deleted a variety of in-process edits that were substantive in improving the article, including addressing definitional issues raise in Talk by professionals, and others noting contradictions between this article and at least one other (likely more, if I look close). (I assume, per AGF, that your motivation was in no part that these were IP edits, as this is disallowed by WP policies.)

If you must express yourself with reversions rather than edits, please, (i) take the time, as I did, to express yourself in a Talk section, (ii) please do your reversions selectively, leaving the changes that you do not disagree with, again, discussing the deletions in Talk, and (iii) please consider the history of the editing—in this case, taking into consideration that I did not create the in-markup Notes, but simply added something to their longstanding, ineffective presence, to try to prompt their resolution.

Finally, if you are not a chemist with significant experience, please consider leaving the decisions about these edits to members of Wikiproject Chemistry, because the issues are a mix of the obvious (material in lede unsupported in the body, by any citation), as well as the much more subtle (whether the definition being used is sufficiently encompassing, a question raised by an Assoc Prof in the Talk section).

I am still editing today, so please still hold, until the "under construction" tag is removed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no anger on my part. There is no reason why any information should have been lost. All is maintained in history, and if there is an edit conflict, the version in process is maintained. But, then again, as you are such an experienced editor with exceptional knowledge, you are probably already aware of this, yes? And, yes, the moon is made of green cheese. Scr★pIron^IV 20:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I am subject matter expert, and an experienced editor, but do not know everything. I do know that trying to reconstruct edits and edit responsibilities from in-markup notes is an utter waste of time. Enjoy your cheese course; I tend to enjoy the colour blue but avoid the colour green in my cours de fromage (and avoid both, and sarcasm, in my humour). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S., A brother retired recently from a career of special ops flying of the Sikorsky MH-53 Pave Low, as well as a variety of former Soviet block airframes in use in Afghanistan. So there is some potential we have some common interests, and that I might yet appreciate your work. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I offer my apologies. After dealing with a LOT of IP vandalism, my eyes got a little tired, and I made a mistake. When I saw comments like the one I quoted (and there was more than one) along with major content changes, then I judged it as disruptive. I see where my mistake was, but I hope that you will understand why it was perceived that way. My initial response had been to show why I had reverted, and I am guessing I was being more than a little patronizing. As for the green cheese comment, I was referring to this article[11] - you may enjoy it. My sense of humor tends strongly towards the sarcastic some days. I wish you well, and hope we can start off anew. Scr★pIron^IV 01:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed a page you keep posting wrong information

Hi, I am ujustu4u Major General Ye Aung has been promoted to JAG with rank of Lt. Gen 2 years ago. Current commander for Central Command is Maj. Gen Soe Htut. If you want the source please refer to Myawaddy Newspaper of Ministry of Defense of Union of Republic of Myanmar. here is latest news of Maj. Gen Soe Htut as Central Command Commander in today newspaper.

မႏၲေလးတိုင္းေဒသႀကီး၊ နန္းၿမိဳ႕တြင္းရွိ နယ္ေျမခံေဆးတပ္ရင္းသို႔ ေစတနာရွင္ အလွဴရွင္တစ္ဦးမွ ေငြက်ပ္သိန္း ၃၀ ေပးအပ္လွဴဒါန္းပြဲကို ဇူလုိင္ ၁၁ ရက္ ညေန ၃ နာရီတြင္ အဆုိပါေဆးတပ္ရင္း၌ က်င္းပျပဳလုပ္ရာ အလယ္ပုိင္းတုိင္းစစ္ဌာနခ်ဳပ္ တုိင္းမွဴး ဗုိလ္ခ်ဳပ္စိုးထြဋ္၊ တုိင္းစစ္ဌာနခ်ဳပ္မွ တပ္မေတာ္အရာရွိႀကီးမ်ား၊ တပ္ရင္းမွဴးႏွင့္ အရာရွိမ်ား၊ အလွဴရွင္ႏွင့္ ဖိတ္ၾကားထားသူမ်ား တက္ေရာက္ၾကသည္။ ထုိ႔ေနာက္ အလွဴရွင္ျဖစ္ေသာ ေဒၚအုန္းၾကည္က လွဴဒါန္းရျခင္းႏွင့္ ပတ္သက္၍ ရွင္းလင္းေျပာၾကားၿပီး အလွဴေငြက်ပ္ သိန္း ၃၀ အား တပ္ရင္းမွဴးထံ ေပးအပ္သည္။ ယင္းေနာက္ အလွဴရွင္အား ဂုဏ္ျပဳမွတ္တမ္းလႊာ ျပန္လည္ေပးအပ္ၿပီး တုိင္းမွဴးက ေက်းဇူးတင္စကား ေျပာၾကားသည္။ အလွဴရွင္အေနျဖင့္ ရရွိေသာ ပင္စင္လစာေငြမ်ားကို စုေဆာင္း၍ ေဆးတပ္ရင္းအတြက္ ေဆးပေဒသာပင္ႏွင့္ ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ကာကြယ္ေရး တာ၀န္မ်ားကို သက္စြန္႔ႀကိဳးပမ္း ထမ္းေဆာင္ေနၾကေသာ တပ္မေတာ္သားမ်ား အတြက္ လွဴဒါန္းျခင္းျဖစ္ေၾကာင္း သိရွိရသည္။ File:MAJ Gen Soe Htut current central command commander

https://www.facebook.com/Cincds/photos/a.530200420434161.1073741832.526503167470553/804402203013980/?type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujustu4u (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the gibberish on my page; I am unable to read most of it. Facebook is not a reliable source. Find a WP:RS for the data, and it can stay. Truth is immaterial; what is verifiable is. Scr★pIron^IV 15:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am resourcing official newspaper of Ministry of Defense of Myanmar. They do not have English references. you keep changing back to information that is almost 2 years old. Ye Aung is going to retire in next 2-3 months from JAG of Myanmar Military with rank of Lt. Gen. Facebook I am referring to the official fabebook site of Myanmar Defense Minitary. If you cannot read if, do NOT make any revision back. WE all want to keep all information as update as possible. Keep your good intention. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujustu4u (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Provide your reference in the article, or it will be reverted. It's that simple. Scr★pIron^IV 16:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You also please provide your sources about that name you are keep correcting is the right one or not. I do not mean no respect to you BUT you keep putting back wrong information. Since you DO NOT KNOW how to read Myanmar language, you should ask a third person someone who can read and write Myanmar Language to read the link I sent. PLEASE DO NOT insult our language as " gibberish" I am providing information as correctly as possible. Myanmar is my country and I want the information about MM as much as possibly as correct one. If you can provide from your end that, the name you keep correcting is current commander of Central Regional Command, you bring your prooff. I am NOT disrupting Wiki. You bring your proof and I bring my proof nd let's find out who is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujustu4u (talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, provide your source IN THE ARTICLE or it will be REVERTED. This may be the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit, but you need to learn how to do it properly. Putting this on my talk page is not providing a source, savvy? Scr★pIron^IV 10:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

?

What kind of source do you want me to include? I just watched it and then try to make a death chart, that it is~

That would be original research, which is not permitted. We report on what others have written about the show, not what we have seen. Additionally, the idea of a Death Chart is controversial, and would require consensus to include one here. Future questions need to be taken to the article's talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jaina

Hiya. Although there's a link here, it's to a sub-section of another page. Consensus for ~7 years has been that this character actually isn't all that notable, so she probably doesn't warrant listing in the notable Jedi section of the article (ditto Plo Koon, or Yarael Poof, or Yaddle, etc. etc.). What do you think? --EEMIV (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

While I do see it as full of fancruft, and don't like that sort of thing at all, it is still blue-linked. As a list of characters, it is a reasonable inclusion. At least the descriptions are reasonable sort. My only reasoning in the change was that the edit summary had specified that it was not blue-linked, and I saw that it was. Scr★pIron^IV 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

AK-47 edits

Hi, you reverted my edit and claimed I did not argue about it. That's not correct:

The Map claims that some countries may or may have used the AK-47 at some point or a "derivative". This is a very fishy claim. If I do the same for Diamonds I would paint almost the entire map. In addition, these informative are present in the article and thus very redundant (and actually less accurate due to mixing them). The article, esp. the Users section is currently heavily favoured to be split off because the article is to long. As such, the map makes it even longer. When "Users" are actually split off, the map may be added again. As is it makes the article longer for no reason. The Map itself is not referenced directly. How come Germany is or may have been (See how informative this is? Is it used or not?) an AK-47 user? The answer is above in the article. East Germany used it. It's not in the map or "Users". The Map also makes an implicit claim what is and is not a derivative. South Korea uses no AK-47. The Daewoo K-2 has an inspired piston system. Is that a derivative?

The combined effect of the above makes the map uninformative to me. What is your claimed informational value of the map?

Kind regards 217.186.51.33 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, take it to the article's talk page where I have started the discussion. Scr★pIron^IV 20:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add to the discussion or let me remove the map to improve the overall quality and length. 217.186.51.33 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi SIIV. I've made a little intervention in the discussion; things were getting somewhat loud. This IP user seems determined to edit war and get their way about that map, but hopefully this should stop them from reverting again. It's 3 vs. 1 now and I hope they will understand they don't have consensus. The map is fine as it is. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please review File talk:AK47map.svg...IP user (AKA: USER 217.186.51.33, USER 77.5.76.235 & USER 95.114.212.6) also recommend that the AK-47 map be deleted there as well.--RAF910 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Singapore Army

Hi, I couldn't verify that that website is reliable, or find any other source that states that Singapore has purchased Merkava tanks, so have removed that claim from the article. There's a discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Singapore does tend to cooperate militarily with 'pariah' states like Israel and Taiwan, so it is possible, but without more reliable sources, we cannot add it to the listing. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I recently edited the Singapore Army's equipment. As a Servicemen with 3 years under the belt. I see no reason for the AK-102 and other soviet based designed rifles in our inventory. Plus it hasn't had a citation in the first place. Please remove it with immediate effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.220.228 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Hacking Team shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bastille Day

Good afternoon, Thank you for your message. Calling the French National Day "Bastille Day" is a complete non sense, every French person with a minimum of culture will tell you that. It's not because a lot of English speakers (even journalists) use that expression that it means it must be the truth. You ask for reliable sources, you can find them in every serious book of modern French History. Could you please put back the few changes I tried to make on the page, you will make a very good point and bring knowledge to so many people ignorant of what exactly the French 14th of July is about. Merci beaucoup. ADMcG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.245.167 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Failure to provide sources for your assertions is the cause of the reversion. Continued failure to source additions to the article will result in further reversions. "Knowledge" and "truth" are supported by sources, otherwise they are merely opinions, whether "cultured" or not.

La cigale, ayant chanté tout l'été, se trouva fort dépourvue quand la bise fut venue. <--- Ça, c'est la verité. Trouvez une source! C'est difficile, je sais. Scr★pIron^IV 15:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Lynton

You say that Michael Lynton is German and reference http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lynton but that article does not say that he is German. In fact it does not mention nationality at all.

I lived in Europe for 22 years and know that you can't have bother British and a second European nationality because my step daughter had to choose to be Brit or French when she turned 18.

He probably is not British as well, the US makes people renounce their birth Nationality when becoming American. My French brother in law had to give up French nationality when he became a US Citizen. Oddly, I was allowed to take a second nationality when I married someone French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmcl (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Seventh day adventists in early christian times?

As requested on your revert, please see Talk:Sunday#Seventh day adventists in early christian times? -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

List of outlaw motorcycle clubs

If you want to add an entry to List of outlaw motorcycle clubs, please make sure it is documented with proper reliable sources. I had to revert your change because a) you deleted an existing entry and b) you didn't cite what you added. — Brianhe (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way if you want to start a new article, the place to do it would be draft:Satan's Disciples Motorcycle Club. If you start there, I'll do my best to help. I've created a few outlaw MC articles (warning, not all of them survived). — Brianhe (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, as I added nothing. I simply reverted an unsourced change. Are you sure you have the right editor? Scr★pIron^IV 18:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I see now. I had misread the history as you editing logged out. Apologies! Brianhe (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not enable defacement of the Observium page

Hi. I'm having significant trouble preventing LibreNMS project members injecting bias and spam into the Observium page. They're part of a competing project, and seem to have taken it upon themselves to make sure that the Observium entry on wikipedia always mentions them, and always says good things about them and tries to say as many negative things about Observium as possible.

I'm not sure what the solution here is, but it is definitely not constantly reverting the page to the edits created by a competing project with a personal vendetta against the Observium developers.

A good solution seems to be to remove the entire history section, since this seems to be where they try their hardest to inject their propaganda.

Thanks.

The proper response is to responsibly edit the page, not blank out entire - and sourced - sections. Continue down the path you are treading now, and I am certain it will lead to a loss of editing privileges. Please read WP:COI Scr★pIron^IV 21:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Mate, what is the solution to this shit? I don't have enough hours in the day to deal with this. The section isn't "sourced". It's just composed of bullshit that LibreNMS write to discredit Observium. They make frequent edits to inject their nonsense, and whenever we remove it we're accused of vandalism. What is the solution? Is it to allow hate-fueled vandals to ruin the page because they make the edits first?

I'd like the page removed, the history section removed, or all references to LibreNMS removed, since LibreNMS is not at all relevant to the history of Observium.

I've tried editing the page. Many times. Many times. They just put their nonsense back within minutes.109.154.122.54 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The section seems adequately sourced; are there any particular statements that are not supported by the sources presented in the article? Scr★pIron^IV 21:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

We both know this is nonsense. What basically happens is that I write a sentence which says :

Observium has a big hat.

And it is changed to

Observium has a big hat but LibreNMS has a bigger freer hat. Observium's hat smells.

What is the solution? Every single line in that section has been subtley modified over the past year to be negative. They repeatedly deleted the Kickstarter section, and have now started to modify the copyright infringement section to suggest that they haven't done anything wrong, and that Observium is evil. What is the solution to this kind of thing? What are the wikipedia policies against defacement of pages by competing interests?

I have examined the sources and removed all statements that are not properly sourced. I removed the GitHub references, as that appears to be a public noticeboard, and as such, would not be a reliable source. Scr★pIron^IV 21:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is acceptable. Neutral and bullshit-free. Thank you very much :) 109.154.122.54 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting further changes to the page, but it was me, just adding some screenshots and stuff. How do I source screenshots? Oo Adamathefrog (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've corrected the tags for the images, could you please un-revert those changes? Thanks :) Adamathefrog (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter who it was that was adding data to this page; if the information is unsourced, it will be reverted. Please read WP:COI as you are directly connected to that project. Scr★pIron^IV 12:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, how can an image be unsourced? If one photographs a tree, how does one "source" the fact that it is a photograph of a tree? It is a screenshot from a publicly accessible installation.Adamathefrog (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, your reversion of the "NOMS" edit is actually in itself unsourced, since the header text on the article is a copy of the header text from the project website, which says NMS, rather than NOMS. I'm aware that unchained bureaucracy is something of a fetish on wikipedia, but it really does make legitimate improvement of the encyclopedia difficult sometimes, whilst simultaneously making defacement of it trivially easy (as demonstrated by the last 2 years of the Observium entry).

I can only do what I can do; I am just another editor, and have no delusions of standing. I was asked to help clean the page up, and am trying to do my part. As for the Wikipedia culture, I am just trying to contribute, and keeping the crayons inside the lines. Scr★pIron^IV 17:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. It's certainly better the way it is now than the way it has been for the past year and a half. Thank you for that! :) Adamathefrog (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

Yeah, that was a weirdness, an errant click or something. I don't recall having made that reversion at all. It's happened a couple of times, I'm genuinely wondering if it's a glitch. Sorry. General Ization ^Talk 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just left a message on your talk page; thanks for explaining. I knew something was off. Have a great day! Scr★pIron^IV 19:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Rollcall is a reliable source

See WP:NEWSBLOG.--109.157.227.234 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert on Historicity of Jesus page

I see you have reverted the slight change I made to the article (", if any"). Although a consensus is often claimed as for the historical existence of Jesus, the same does not seem to apply to any facts in his life according to biblical scholar J.D. Crossan (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/). Apeximius (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, consensus on the talk page, and the preponderance of sources. Take it elsewhere - like maybe the article's talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

UNJUSTIFIED DELETION

To ScrapIronIV :

In Wikipedia's "Hungarians in Australia" website there is a "Also see" portal which follows the article proper. Into there, my recent entry contribution was a source of information of interest to Wikipedia readers but more so to Hungarian Hungarian descent ones and to ethno-social researchers in future. You have arbitrarily deleted this contribution the subject title of which was "Hungarian Immigration in Australia". As required, my entry was properly cross-referenced to the specific website of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, administered by the Australian National University History Department. The subject is important enough to be a source of information in line with Wikipedia guidelines. So why the deletion? What is the problem? Please explain your contention, you arbitrary veto and consider restoring my entry a.s.a.p., before your unjustified deletion is reported to Wikipedia administration. Civil discourse is welcome. Thank you.Attilaurm (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is not your website. Whether it is of interest to anyone but you is questionable at best. It is an unvetted, unsourced, and personal essay - by you personally - that you are attempting to insert into the article. Please see WP:COI as you have a clear conflict of interest in attempting to push it into a list-class article. You need to find another place to promote your essay; Wikipedia is not that place. Scr★pIron^IV 04:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them edit

"Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIronIV 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)"

68.40.120.183 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC) What was wrong with my source? It referenced J. K. Rowling's official Twitter account, and I double-checked the URL, and it connected correctly to her exact Tweets on her Twitter account. That is where J. K. Rowling has been releasing information about the film. She verified it was her official Twitter account in one of her earliest Tweets that had a link to a video of her saying it is really her. What about that source is invalid? Or did I type the citation in incorrectly? I could use some clarification. 68.40.120.183 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.120.183 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Even an official twitter account of someone associated with the film does not make it an official casting announcement. It is preliminary, and premature to state it as fact. Wikipedia does not live on rumors and maybes. When a reliable source reports it as fact, then we can report it. Not an ongong commentary by an involved party, but a newspaper report, or corporate press release. Scr★pIron^IV 18:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And, no, fan sites are not reliable sources. Mugglenet does not make the cut. Please read WP:RS Scr★pIron^IV 18:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert on Freedom Caucus page

Here is the article used to cite the additional members. http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/house-freedom-caucus-forms-fight-club/

You need to be careful with blogs as sources, as they are not (generally) reliable. As that article is a reprint of a CQ Quarterly article, you might wish to find the original citation. As it stands, I will not contest the inclusion of this roster due to the nature of the source if you restore it. Thank you for discussing it. Scr★pIron^IV 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

King Bach

Re: [12] Damn, they hopped IPs and my revert didn't go back far enough! Thanks for spotting that. OMG I MADE ANOTHER MISTAKE! DERAIL MY RfA! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL - Never make a mistake; it will never be forgiven! :-D Scr★pIron^IV 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. Thanks for your help with this edit [13].Lucas559 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Srebrenica Edits

Hi ScrapIronIV, I agree with you reverting my edit because it did not fit well into the article. I made an improvement. It is important to introduce holocaust scholar Yair Auron who also recently wrote that even after 20 years "denial continues." It is of utmost importance to explain 1 burning question about Srebrenica - why were women not killed? I made an edit and cited Krstic Appeal that explains why were women forcibly transferred instead of killed. We need to keep this information somehow in the article because it is extremely important to explain. We cannot focus on men and boys, we have to focus on women too; they were part of Srebrenica massacre too. No questions should be left unanswered. And again, feel free to improve my latest edits, as opposed to revert them. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.77.121 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV, I have removed and tried to answer 24.85.77.121 on the article talk page.Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

SEA LIFE Arizona Wiki

Please stop removing content from the SEA LIFE Arizona page that have sources and links to articles. You could very easily fix any incorrect formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.197.213.194 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that was removed had any sourceing. It is also not a WP:COATRACK to hang information that is not applicable to Sea Life Arizona. Also, please read WP:COI - The Merlin Entertainment headquarters should not be editing this article, and posting advertising. I will be looking at the other articles associated with Merlin. Scr★pIron^IV 13:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Merlin headquarters is not making the edits and there is no advertising within the articles. All information posted is coming from a neutral perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.197.213.194 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing to adjust your company's search results is a clear conflict of interest. The article in question is not just about "museums" - if you read it, it is also about "exhibits and other educational venues" added to malls. The content is sourced and has been long standing. Its blanket removal is unwarranted, and definitely not "neutral." If anything, Merlin's activities in this regard should be expanded in the article. They appear to be a major participant in the expansion of informational and educational attractions in malls across the U.S. Scr★pIron^IV 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please assist in re-working the Arizona venue from a more neutral perspective from your point of view? I will cease to make edits to the mall museums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.197.213.194 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have been trying to do that for the past couple of days. Unfortunately, some material had to be deleted due to a lack of sourcing. As sources are found and provided, I am certain the aricle can be improved. Most of what has been there was primary or travel sites. If you go to the talk page, we can discuss improvements there. Scr★pIron^IV 18:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for being a pain. I will log into my account and discuss improvements for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.197.213.194 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Cohen Playwright and Theater Director

Hi Scrap Iron -

I saw your note regarding the edit to the Jeff Cohen Wiki entry. Having never encountered this before I would like to strenuously request inclusion of the edit which is nothing more than factual press quotes from Mr. Cohen's plays and productions. There is no 'non-neutral' editorializing, there is only a précis of some of what has been published in major newspapers over the course of Mr Cohen's career. I fail to see how this is any different from the listing of awards won by Mr. Cohen (i.e. Drama Desk Award) or inclusion of Mr. Cohen's work as a Critic's Pick or Best New Play. All of the inclusions of the edit are published and verifiable.

In a larger sense, the career of Mr. Cohen is noteworthy not for what has been said by those who have a personal relationship with him, but by those who, by profession, are paid for their objective criticism and judgment. Your decision to refuse the edit due to their being 'non-neutral' casts an unwarranted and arbitrary aspersion on those professionals, who, by the way, include such critical luminaries as the new York Times' Ben Brantley, the Washington Post's Peter Marks (formerly of the NY Times), New York Magazine's John Simon and many others.

Please reverse your decision and reinstate the edit. Or, if you decide not to, please send me another note explaining why and be so good as to let me know who I might contact regarding the edit to Mr. Cohen's entry.

Thank you!

[please excuse any typos] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.134.174 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a review site. Reverted per WP:NPOV - feel free to contact anyone you wish, but this edit adding an extensive list of reviews[14] is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Scr★pIron^IV 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Though it is likely to be of use, User talk:67.243.134.174, I reviewed the edit made by ScrapIronIV, and concur entirely that a list of laudatory review quotations, even if well-sourced, is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article on a playwright. For comparison, see this year's Tony winner, Simon Stephens, for one way, albeit not yet perfect, for presenting awards and accolades. For a related example of a text-type presentation of critical response and accolades, see for instance this television series. Hope this helps understand ways in which positive (and negative) reviews might be better presented. Cheers. Le Prof [User:Leprof_7272] 71.201.62.200 (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Quranism page vandalism

The anonymous user 24.193.87.244 is horribly vandalizing the page on Qur'anism. I am attempting to restore the page and improve its contents, but my edits are arbitrarily reverted by this user who is clearly spamming and manipulating the page. Is there anyway to stop this?

??? False positive? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, someone is posting as you: See [15]. Nasty... - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Thank you for letting me know; I was a bit slow on the uptake. Fortunately, he was blocked for other reasons. A little more peace at that article will be appreciated. Scr★pIron^IV 20:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Spaghet!

Well that's interesting--the user who threw shade at my RfA is being accused of sockpuppetry. That's a twist! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand congratulations are in order. Sorry that it's such a tough process, but I am sure you will do well. Just keep a very thick skin! :-) That editor's history is interesting, to say the least. How someone ends up at an RfA in barely a month, with less than a hundred edits is suspicious. Scr★pIron^IV 19:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

About your warning

Hello. About your warning template on my user page this one If you look at the edit history you can see the two edits happened at the same moment and I didn't delete your message, it is a computor program issue. Best Govindaharihari (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Medford knife And tool

Hello, I made a completely new article replaces the old one, if you will reconsider your position with regard to delete article? Thank you http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Medford_knife_and_tool Eytankey (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert of Edward Rayne from list of fashion designers

Hi ScrapironIV, thank you for removing Edward Rayne from the list of fashion designers. He's now housed on a new page List of footwear designers and it was my error to put him on the fashion designer list. However, there is evidence he was more than a businessman and I have to stand up for him on design credentials! Apart from his extremely long apprenticeship and Jean Muir describing him as the best shoemaker of his generation, he was also considered eligible to chair IncSoc and the BFC. Many thanks again. Libby norman (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly meant no insult by removing him from there; I have since been reverted on that myself, with the clarification of his design work. I guess shoes would be a subset of fashion, so I have no intention of removing him again. Thank you for coming to my page with kind words - they are greatly appreciated! Scr★pIron^IV 19:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A pleasure and keep up the good work. Libby norman (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! ARC-V

I left a reference for Jack and Crow cause they returned in the show.Sage of the Six Paths (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you added 30,000 bytes of bloat to a list class article. Scr★pIron^IV 20:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Lebanese citizens

Don't just undo, there are people who spend their precious time updating Wikipedia with relevant stuff. You can just remove the details which you don't seem to see appropriate and causing Wikipedia to look like a manual. But don't undo it I've added visa requirements for partially recognized territories and restricted zones which wasn't already there. All the refs links are provided there's no reason for it not to be there as other wiki pages of the same category have it listed for their respective citizens. I'm gonna undo your edit, please don't undo but rather "delete" what you see as unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.55.90.176 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read comments and edit summaries you would spend "precious time" with trivia. Also, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because other articles are in lousy condition, does not mean that this one needs to be. Scr★pIron^IV 14:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin Women's Basketball Page

Hello, Just wondering why you keep reverting the Wisconsin Women's Basketball page on me.. they have new assistant coaches according to the official UWBadgers website and also I had the roster how it officially shows up on the site with correct numbers and everything. Please stop changing it as I am not defaming of defacing anyone in relationship to UW Women's basketball team.. I am just a fan and like to update coaches records and player statistics as the year progresses. Not sure what rules I have violated since I have been editing this page for the last 4 years and no one has had any problems with my edits up until now.. so please Stop reverting my accurate changes.

Thank You, BigBucky29 - Badger Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBucky29 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@BigBucky29: Wikipedia requires sources to support changes to articles. If I reverted your changes, it was because no source was provided to justify the change. Please see WP:RS and WP:V if you wish your changes to remain. Scr★pIron^IV 14:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the additions are a clear copy/paste copyright violation of the Wisconsin Badgers website. All ofending data must be removed. Scr★pIron^IV 15:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Test

test

Move over redirect

Hi ScrapIron, can you tell me how to do a move over redirect (as in reverting an unauthorized move, like you did recently with Upper extremity of femur)? Every time I try to do that, the redirect gets in the way and won't let me make the move/reversion. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not do anything special, although I do use Twinkle which is a big help in some tasks. I select the "Move" option onder the "More" drop-down menu, and fill in the form. Perhaps Twinkle adds something to the mix; I know that it is incredibly useful to me. Scr★pIron^IV 13:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New section for IP

Okay so can you listen to me please and listen carefuly, i do not want to go in to edit war and i also do not want you to re add the information that i deleted, okay so can you please listen for just this once, the music videos on wiki does not need to know how many views it has on youtube, if you continue to do this then i'll have to report, you do you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.186.215 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The information you deleted was sourced content. Whether you believe it needs to be there or not is something to be discussed, instead you choose to edit war over it. You have vandalized my user page, although perhaps you were merely confused how to leave a message. Take the problem you have with the sourced content to the talk page of the article, and seek consensus to have it removed. Scr★pIron^IV 14:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay i understand im sorry for what i've done please can you forgive me if you do leave me a message on my talk page again im really sorry please forgive me. your sincilery 82.3.186.215 16:08 13 august 2015

This is not unsourced so shut up.

Right Im going to report you, you are never to have access to wiki ever again so get lost.

your sincilery 82.3.186.215 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.186.215 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Kidz Bop

Looks like you and I edit-conflicted on User talk:64.134.69.166. No worries, the problem is solved:) DMacks (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Just another day in paradise :-D Scr★pIron^IV 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Climate Data

Please do not revert the changes I have made to Hereford and Credenhill climate section. It took 2 days to do.--188.221.227.94 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2015 (BST)

The content that was added was excessive bloat to the articles in question, with minutae about meteorological data that unnecessarily clogs the articles. Scr★pIron^IV 14:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

look at this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eureka,_Nunavut --188.221.227.94 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2015 (BST)

Part of the notability of that location is its climate, as one of the coldest and remotest inhabited places on earth. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include such detailed data for Hereford or Credenhill. Scr★pIron^IV 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Pinging your memory

Thank you very much! Sadly I can't recall someone like that off the top of my head. I generally frequent tropical cyclone and severe weather articles rather than climate-related content, nor city/town articles which have climate sections, so I may not have run into this person before. If they're still an issue I'll certainly keep an eye out for them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

3 reverts

Hello, from my beginning in editing today you are reverting me on the spot, okay I understand the first one neutrality, but you removed the second one completely,you could have changed it in addition to the Chartres reverts; thank you.Whiteflagfl (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I could not rewrite it for you, as I had some difficulty understanding exactly what you wanted to say. As I mentioned in the edit summary, there is not a problem with the content, but the presentation. You were missing at least one important verb, and had turned the sentence into a long ramble. Scr★pIron^IV 20:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

William Henry White

I just spent about six hours researching the citations. The original sources are photographs of the documents, not secondary or tertiary sources. That is why the citations are so long. They are to the actual documents, not the typical ancestry.com stuff. The purpose of all the effort is that there is another page that states that a baronet is the grandson of this William Henry White, via his "daughter Elizabeth" which is probably incorrect. So I am documenting this William Henry White before finding the correct one. If you have a Wikipedia-standard way of citing the same documents I am all for it. At the bottom of the ancestry.com pages there is documentation describing the source but it does not contain actual photos of the documents. So isn't it better to give the picture which includes the original source rather than a dry socket source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.154.213 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I just looked at the page after your revert. You are a hooligan. Put back the information or I will report you.68.32.154.213 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If I am reading what you have just said correctly, you are finding original documents (primary sources) and analyzing and interpreting their contents? Scr★pIron^IV 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources For example, on the William Henry White page you deleted the external links paragraph I added with the two sources that appear to be the bases for the article. In addition the usual way to criticize links is to add a tag "better reference source needed" rather than to delete the content. You also deleted content without looking at the references. Really weak on the interpretation of reliable sourcing -- every source organization has its issues. Usually whenI came across a weak source, I add a better source. You seem to prefer hacking. Sometimes I bookmark a page and return a few days or weeks later to see what else has been done. Sometimes a little activity draws more people to improve an article.

On the Oswald Moseley page the information is from one of the references already cited. I'm just trying to add temporal information that gives a reader an idea of the times. One of the factors that I am looking for more sources because critical to his attitudes and behavior but only casually addressed in the article is the distant relationships he had. But if I can not find a source I will not address the issue.68.32.154.213 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a difference in philosophy about information. My perspective is imperfect knowledge is not necessarily false, just an incomplete path to the truth. People are writing what they know or have been told. To blindly cite tertiary sources without giving the reader the ability to see the original source and make up their own mind, when the internet makes this possible, seems like an old dusty encyclopedia seldom used. It is the links to external secondary and tertiary sources that makes Wikipedia so useful. A student can not write an excellent paper with just Wikipedia but he can with the sources to which it leads.68.32.154.213 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we do disagree on the nature of sourcing, but websites which rely on community provided information - and which have no oversight - do not make the grade for reliable sources. Ancestry.com is such a source, accepting input from the general populace without appropriate vetting. I applaud your dedication to your research. Whether information is true or false is, unfortunately, not what we do here. We include published and appropriately vetted research, and do not performit ourselves. If the research you do becomes published, we can use it. In the meantime, accusations of my being a "hacker" and a "hooligan" are unconstructive, and are not appreciated. Scr★pIron^IV 13:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. You are not a hooligan. Yet you do not understand the purpose of the ahnentafel. It is not a section that is made for adding sources. It is simply a hyperlink table like you see at the bottom of most pages. You are probably one of the people who adds the tag to such section that the links need to be sourced. But that will never happen because that is not its purpose. Which is why people ignore or remove such tags. You are quite the hacker, though. You do understand the purpose of Wikipedia but you do not understand the role of an editor or page monitor. Fix the citations, do not destroy the information. Inform the wikipedian of your improvement. Hackers go around making wholesale deletes. Editors and monitors do not. You have to add two more questions to your editing repetoire: 1. Is the information I am looking at constructive or destructive? 2. Is my edit constructive or destructive? I think we agree that adding links to to sources means eventually the link will go dead. So the question is whether for ease of use, we add a current link (some people add "Accessed 2015 Aug 14") along with the citation, or not. Which citation styles do you prefer, and do they include links? Also, I write books when I have original research; I do not link Wikipedia to my own works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.154.213 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You made an interesting assumption about ancestry.com and their ilk which should be discussed as a subtopic. Most people are familiar with hierarchic oversight: an elite group who have risen to their editing position through education, evaluation by their superiors and continuing experience. The problem is that hierarchic oversight that has been developed in such a manner is usually deficient in areas slightly outside the core competency of its group and is weak at adding new members capable of expert editing in noncore areas. To address the basic flaw, an organization can take advantage of "mass mind", where members vett each other's work product, etc. The difficulty is that the group is so large, the core competency slips from the grasp of any cadre. As one of the elite, the problem you seem to have is that the core competency of the Wikipedia mass mind you are within is different than the core competency of the Ancestry.com mass mind. You do not understand their entity, and they do not understand your own. Both websites interact with the same basic information but value it differently. Just because Ancestry.com has access to information otherwise inaccessible (ex. vaulted genealogies of Swiss cantons) does not mean it is irrelevant to wikipedians. You are confusing the value-judgement process of Ancestry.com with its data sources. The reverse occurs: from the perspective of elite ancestry.com users, wikipedia is almost useless. The citations are not verifiable because they are incomplete or inaccurate. So your emphasis on citations is wise. Citations increase the usefulness but not the reliability of Wikipedia. BUT -- you want to go back to the pre-internet age where the possibility of hyperlinking to the source was impossible. It is not "research" to link to the primary source. You need to become a surgeon, not a hacker.68.32.154.213 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that fascinating lesson on our cultural differences. Have a nice day, and don't forget to cite reliable sources when you add data. Additions without them can, and should, be reverted. Scr★pIron^IV 15:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Re your note at ANI, your editing of the article was fine, and in good faith. I had to notify all parties mentioned per the rules of ANI. It turns out that there was a sockfarm involved. Socks have been indeffed, master has been blocked for a month. I've proposed a topic ban for him/her. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response; I've gotten myself in trouble a couple of times, and would rather err on the side of caution. It gets tough sometimes! Scr★pIron^IV 20:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, seems that you've learnt from past mistakes, which is a good thing (the learning, that is). Mjroots (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I absolutly do think you made a mistake

Hey, did ya happen to see on that tag the thing about not removing the tag? I am assuming that it was a mistake but just cause you don't like my reasons doesn't meant you can trample all over my work. Please put the tag back. If you don't in a few minutes I'll do it myself, but I won't like you as much after that. Schwarzschild Point • 20:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is appropriate to remove a tag when it does not belong. This is discussed on the talk page; You were WP:BOLD to insert it, but it has been reeverted per WP:BRD. If you restore it, then it won't be me who has an issue. Scr★pIron^IV 20:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Schwarzschild Point, it maybe your idea of improving an article by bastardising it with an ugly tag, but it's not anybody else's. A dispute can easily be settled on the talk page, without making the article suffer aesthetically. Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There was obviously a discussion going on, wasn't there? Obviously something wrong with the page, that seven or eight people complained on the talk page. Why do you think it doesn't belong? Put it back please, I want to get along, here. Schwarzschild Point • 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Pykrete article

Hi ScrapIronIV,

I wanted to share my reasoning for the edit you reverted (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Pykrete&oldid=670446320&diff=prev).

a) I'm not sure if you've read the book in question, but the sentence fragment I deleted is actually quite a big spoiler that doesn't appear in the blurb or other promotional materials. As such, and especially since it's a recent book, I think there should be some overwhelming reason to mention it.

b) Since this is an article about Pykrete, it's good to share the mention of Pykrete in a book, but details of the plot don't really seem relevant.

For these reasons, I think the edit should stand. What do you think?

Apologies for the profanity in my edit message :)

Kartik Agaram (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I often wonder how much plot should be included. It often gets to be too much, but as this was such a concise summary, I did not see it as an extreme spoiler. Yes, I will admit the profanity made me take it a bit more seriously; it made the edit itself seem intentionally disruptive. Flies with honey, and all. As I have not read the book, I will defer to your judgement and let it stand. Perhaps, as we compromise here, you will consider that such words have power, and sometimes turn good will to ill. Cheers! Scr★pIron^IV 02:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Algolia

Hi, Just a request, next time when you remove CSD templates, give a proper edit summary. Regards Hitro talk 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I did. Think about it. Scr★pIron^IV 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You did not. WP:CIR is an essay not a policy. WP:CSD is a policy. You gave a silly comment, redirected to an essay and removed a template related to a policy. I request you again, proper edit summary is better than acting smart. Hitro talk 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would highly recommend that you re-read what I wrote. You have been here far to long to request a Speedy Delete for a long standing article, written by a seasoned editor, and has numerous valid sources. Even AfD will fail; do you consider a dedicated Forbes article to be a "trivial mention"? The tone was not promotional, either. Competence IS required; you should have achieved it by now. If you haven't, then there is nothing I can do for you. See you at the AfD page, unless you choose to show some wisdom and withdraw it. Scr★pIron^IV 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You wrote a dubious edit summary, I read it, it does not worth re-reading. FYI, I am here for long thats why i know that Speedy deletion is not only for new articles written by new editors. "a long standing article, written by a seasoned editor" can be speedily deleted, I guess you have not understood the criteria of CSD. Competence is certainly required you will achieve it with time. However, Afd is better place to discuss it. Give proper references as per guidelines, I will certainly withdraw my AfD, otherwise I am fully aware of the policies on Wikipedia, I am not here to delete this article, I just want this article should be here as per guidelines, if it fails on guidelines then it should be gone. Be polite. :) Regards. Hitro talk 21:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It was not a dubious edit summary. It was an edit summary that was clearly meant to convey my absolute shock that anyone would consider it qualified for a Speedy. Did you do any research at all? Or did you just swing by and say, "That looks iffy, let's get rid of it!" Seriously. You need to pay attention. Now, go over to the AfD page and justify it. Good luck with that. This conversation is finished. It was nice to meet you, now go away. Scr★pIron^IV 21:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Slavery in the United States#Effects of slavery on Southern economic development vs. Effects of slavery on Southern macroeconomic development

The distinction is necessary so it is not confused with the microeconomic effects of slavery covered in the sections on Efficiency of slaves and Prices of slaves. Contemporary microeconomic studies of slavery showed that slavery was incredibly profitable for slaveowners (despite what the racist Lost Cause promoters argued), even though contemporary studies of the macroeconomic effects of slavery shows that it did not make the American South as a whole wealthier. This contrast is why the distinction is necessary. - Jajhill 19:04 UTC

My point is that the distinction should be in the text, not in the header. We should keep headers short and sweet. Scr★pIron^IV 19:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So, if the final sentence in the section said, "Sowell draws the following conclusion regarding the macroeconomics of slavery:" instead of "Sowell draws the following conclusion regarding the economics of slavery:", you would find that acceptable? - Jajhill 21:03, 18 August 2015 UTC

I had no specific issues with the content, merely the length of the header. The article is about slavery, so no need to mention it again. Headers should be brief, and not make the point of the text. A good header in this case would be "Effects on Southern economic development" as that is a simple as it can be distilled to. Mention the microeconomics angle in the text, as appropriately sourced. Scr★pIron^IV 21:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups

Thank you for your edits on this article - I'm sure Gnata is acting in good faith when he changed the figures to only include singles from 1995 onwards, to keep it in line with other countries, but this shows precisely the problems I have with the whole article (documented on the talk page)... if you're not going to include records before 1995 then the article should be titled "List of best-selling girl groups since 1995" and not have an arbitrary cut-off date. I created the list of million sellers in the US as it's fairly easy to find this information at this sales level, and it seemed the only fair way to include all the best sellers, pre-1995 included. The trouble is, while the info is available for the US and UK, the same can't be said for other countries. No problem with using certification levels to try and compile the best sellers in Australia, but certification only started there in 1997, I think. So if there are no other sources from before this date, it will be impossible to ever compile an accurate list - and the same goes for other countries. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I do hope the editor adds the information they wish to include, and not continue to delete sourced information out of some sense of "fairness." Scr★pIron^IV 20:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's face it, any list of best-selling girl groups in the US that fails to even mention the Supremes is on dodgy ground before it starts... Richard3120 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Carl Froch

Greetings. Your blanket revert of my edits made no sense on the whole, so I've reinstated most of it. Besides the birthplace niggle, what was wrong with it? If by overlinking you mean the specific world title links in the lead, I cannot see anything wrong with that. Plenty of sportspeople articles (including GAs) do that before the prose, and to a much greater extent. It provides a more informative summary for the reader without having to scroll down to find them in the meat n' bones of the article. Also, "unsourced nickname"? I merely removed the italics for it on the field—those are for foreign language nicknames. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You changed the links from the organizations which control the titles to lists of title winners, which was an inappropriate change. The nature of the titles won is what belonged, not lists of past winners of those. Additionally, you changed the correct use of imperial measurements for a British fighter to metric units. Whether MBE belongs in the infobox is up for debate, it is sometimes included, sometimes not. As it is already prominently linked in the text, I chose to remove it. I did make an error on mentioning the nickname in the edit summary; I did not remove it. I will be restoring the previous - and correct - version of the article. If you wish to change those links, you will need to take it to the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Scr★pIron^IV 13:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Tip

It's me again, the anonymous user. Try to look to see if the ship is actually decommissioned and other similar pages before changing the edits right away, oh and on the equipment of the us army, the m8 smoke grenade was retired in the 1960s because it actually says on its page. So why do you keep putting it back?

TIP Provide a source with your changes, and they won't get reverted. Scr★pIron^IV 17:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

verb tense

With regard to your reversion of my edit, I am not sure that applies in that way. We had as discussion about this very thing a while back in MoS talk, and some think that the present tense should be used in all cases, even when no examples still exist. I think we could go either way on that. I will probably try to leave it as "was" for situations like that. --rogerd (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you discussing it, as there are often different interpretations of the MoS. As the balance of the article is also in the past tense, it looked particularly out of place. The lack of surviving examples made it even moreso. I was not aware of that discussion, but I will hop on over there and take a peek at it. Thank you for pointing it out to me! Scr★pIron^IV 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

New section for IP

You suck at keeping up to date on stuff. I edited the Los Angeles class pages because they were outdated but then you ruined it. Why??? (Unsigned comment from IP 71.13.255.104)

You made multiple changes to several articles without providing any sources for the changes you made. Please read your own user talk page for comments from me and other editors as to why your changes were reverted. You need to provide reliable sources so that new infor mation can be verified Scr★pIron^IV 12:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Believed to be same user:

Do not change my edits. I'm just trying to keep the pages up to date!!!

    Anonymous user

Attack

I didn't try to attack you, I just made null edits to put links in page history which you can't remove! Bombwipedia (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yuo were attacking another editor, one whom I respect. Hoefully, someone will get rid of your presence. Go find something useful to do. Now, stay off my user page. Now, and forever - in all of your sockpuppet forms. I don't even care who you used to be, before you got banned. Scr★pIron^IV 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Indiabulls Wikipedia Page

Had made a few edits to the Indiabulls wikipedia page. Just noticed that you can reverted it back to previous data. PFB the edits that i had done, along with the source links. Could you please let me know what i am doing wrong so i can rectify the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manmeetb1 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed promotional material that was either unsourced, or was sourced from the company's web site. While we sometimes use limited information from a primary source, we generally avoid it. That kind of self promotion is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, please do not post walls of article text to my talk page. Further discussion can be kept at the article's talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever Happened to "Sarah's" Story?

Hi, did you deleted the section on Sarah's story? If so, could you say Why?

From Great Britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.109.176 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I specified in the edit summary, it was not properly sourced, and unencyclopedic. It was a trivial first person account of a user's experience. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This story was sourced,as it was concerned with a report in the Daily Mirror (This issue has also been reported by other British newspapers and websites). If the tone of text was unencyclopedic, it was mainly due to it being taken from the newspaper article in question. This reported on the way the Jobcentre faked quotes - giving the impression that the "claimants" remarks were for real. If needed, could not this section be adjusted to keep it within Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.185.217 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that the issue of fake Jobcentre quotes has been covered by a number of newspapers, what is to prevent the section (if is was kept inline with Wikipedia rules) being re-instated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.226.161 (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

When it is included, it needs to be a statement of fact, not a narration. Wikipedia does not editorialize. Scr★pIron^IV 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi ScrapIronIV as contributor to the Air force list, wondering if you'd chime in on this discussion. I'm trying compromise on some parts of the overhauled lists that I've done, or maybe I have it wrong - Regards FOX 52 (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it. I have been on the fence about a number of project standards when it comes to images. Scr★pIron^IV 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, ScrapIronIV. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 08:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm Zeke, please leave my edit

Not sure how to cite my own self, but I'm the source, so please leave the edit. I'd like it to be made clear, as I stated in the voice mail, I had nothing to do with any computer activities whatsoever. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.67.89 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you can't really cite yourself. Even if there were a way to prove who you are, what gets included in Wikipedia is what has been reliably sourced by third parties. Scr★pIron^IV 13:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourced to the author's website. "This has nothing to do with any computer activities whatsoever". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.67.89 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, a WP:PRIMARY source, which cannot stand for a controversial issue. It needs to be sourced to a reliable and independant source Scr★pIron^IV 13:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

instead of reverting

find the source yourself. Crystal.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/13597/Malaysia_To_Buy_Starstreak_V_Shorads_Missiles

@Phd8511: You have been here long enough to know that it is up to the individual who inserts content to provide a source for it. You have also been here long enough to learn how to sign your posts, right? You know, PhD, and all. (In case you forgot, it is four tildes) Scr★pIron^IV 14:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This should make things a little clearer to you

This is the subject matters personal twitter page, these two tweets are running concurrent of each other. please view per my contentions with a COI with a vested interest in monetary gain. thank you. it might make things a little clearer for you and clear up my frustrations. please don't rope me in like that, yes I am brand new but I want to be as constructive as I can. I/O (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are both being disruptive, and Wikipedia is not the place for it. Do not take your pet war to my talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 16:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

um, lil curt don't you think ScrapIron? see talk page per our previous interactions I/O (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is curt. I am disgusted by the behavior on that page. As I said, do not bring this here. Stay off my talk page, and keep the mess on the article. Scr★pIron^IV 17:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected your talk page

Two days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Virginia-class submarine

Just for your contemplation, 4+6+2=12. Nyth63 00:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And I do think the IP user's edit summary was borderline comical/snarky. Nyth63 00:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

M939

Hi there ScrapIron IV,

Ref your removal of some of the See Also in the M939 article. I had a look around Wiki before I made those additions, and what I saw amounted to no real consensus to guide me; some articles appear to have many and varied See Also, while others have few, if any. Some appear to get away with many and varied, and many many more (and varied) than those of the M939. I suspect somewhere Wiki has guidelines, but I suspect like so many guidelines, they're open to individual interpretation! Anyway, life is far too short to worry too much about such things, above and beyond the fact I think MTVR should remain. After all, it is the Marines' M939, and if I remember correctly it actually replaced the Marines' remaining M809 and M939 fleets. The others, I'm not fussed about at all. Some would think they should stay, others will think they should go. I'm happy to let them go!Wolpat (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I will look again. For me, a "see also" should have a direct link to the subject. When I was reading through the list I was striving to keep it to equivalent vehicles; basically American military heavy trucks. The M939 was never really considered a "tactical" vehicle, but a support vehicle. As the MTVR was "medium" and "tactical" I made that call. I can see that, from a lineage perspective, I was wrong to remove that one. Thanks for pointing it out! Scr★pIron^IV 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all. Tactical is another of those variables... AS for overall inclusion, if it were down to me I'd probably include anything with three axles that carries the same payload, and does the same job... That said, don't think it's a subject that's worth a big debate though, as certainly across Wiki there's no consistency at all. So like I said, happy to leave as is with MTVR back in. Thanks for a civil exchange. 86.186.100.225 (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Knorr Bremse revert

Go on, tell waht's wrong... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:88.151.79.141 88.151.79.141 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Bloat

Good Morning,

What type of info do you consider bloating? That doesn't make sense to me. Many wiki-pages of identical category contained disputed territories visa requirements why not include it to the Lebanese visa requirements page? Why do you just go on and undo everything, That seemed bloating to you? Remove that single piece of info you consider un-needed. Do you consider having extra notes as bloating? Well fingerprinting info is present on the US Citizens visa requirements, Info about Online Visa Application availability is present on many other wiki-pages. I just put so much time into gathering the relevant piece of info about exemptions, extensions, and other notes regarding the entry to a specific country. You just go on undoing everything.

Regards,

NP: You also undo-ed the spelling corrections I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibanoGerman (talk • contribs) 08:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC) LibanoGerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.53.94.107 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Knorr Bremse revert

Bringing it here, I have no acc here...

So what exactly is "copyrighted", I used de-wp as a source. Tell me, schmock. 88.151.79.141 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would have explained, except for the insult. Now you'll just have to figure it out for yourself. Scr★pIron^IV 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you should have explained, as schmock is not an insult (meaning fool). But do your homework yourself, won't teach you.

I sat a few hours to translating the german wp entry to english. Obviously you know better than me, or the german wp in this case.

You should really explain - for the first time I am contemplating reporting vandalism. You are about to screw things.

Where do you see copyrighted stuff I used? 88.151.79.141 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think calling someone a fool is not an insult, then there is nothing I can do to help you. Do your own google searches. You will find direct word for word copies that predate your addition here. Now, stay off my page. Leave, and do not return. Scr★pIron^IV 19:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So I excuse for using the word "fool" in connection with you because this may have hurt you badly. Are we done? I have had to read far more insulting things here, but I am not one who cannot say sorry.

I was really shocked to come back to the page and find it deleted - and *no* explanation given by you. Diff You say "word for word copies", you mean text - show me.

I did translate from german wp, can not find any exact equivalent. I added pics, added surplus information from other wp-pages, set wiki links, all by myself. Proof that i am wrong, otherwise re-revert. 88.151.79.141 (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I accept the apology, and will see how I can help. I did a random sampling of sentences. I found "In the early twentieth century, train guards still had to operate brakes by hand, from so-called "brake vans"" in use on several pages which predate your edit today, including fghairbrake.com, facebook, and rediff.com. Additionally, the phrase "The second main area of activity for Knorr-Bremse emerged in 1922, when they moved into pneumatic braking systems for commercial road vehicles" was found on those sites, and on cca-engineering.com. This was enough to inform me that there were specific copyvio issues, and I performed the reversion. Scr★pIron^IV 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And I see my error, and I have self reverted. Thank you for pointing it out - I am not ashamed to admit when I make a mistake. Scr★pIron^IV 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly, both parts were already there. I did not change any of these. It is alright that some go out and check contributions here. But I only saw you were reverting like crazy. This can be harmful - you know, "good faith", "be bold"...

It is not a good feeling to see work you have done speedily deleted, and I felt like "what has happened here? Cannot be serious!".

I'd say quid pro quo, you can excuse for your deeds, too. Good night, 88.151.79.141 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

COI on Laurie Patton

You placed {{COI}} on the Laurie Patton article with no reasoning given on August 11, even though we'd closed as Keep on 6 July after an AfD that highlighted the COI and caused much change to the article. The only edits since that AfD result were NOT from the conflicted editor. What more do they need to do to remove themselves from the article? (In other words, I think the talk page notification, {{Connected contributor}}, is enough here now.) Mark Hurd (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning had been that two connected editors using a corporate name associated with the subject had been quite active on this article in the past couple of months, as recently as July. The COI tag seemed quite appropriate to me. It still does, but feel free to use your best judgement. If you believe that it is no longer necessary, then feel free to update it. Scr★pIron^IV 13:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sirius XM Love

This is very frustrating. I've been wanting to document the recent changes in Sirius XM channels, and all I know is what they say on Facebook. You'd think someone would write about it in what we would consider an acceptable source. Hundreds and hundreds of complaints, and I can't even use that! Only a few about the Love channel but it is said there were lots before Sirius XM removed them from the official Facebook page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

For programming content, we can use WP:PRIMARY sources. Perhaps that is a direction to consider? Facebook is not a great choice, but perhaps the official website would be a place to look. 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I could try that. I was looking for independent aources. You'd think someone by now would have found out about the protests. I fixed some NPOV on Escape (Sirius XM) but of course I've still got unsourced information because there were protests.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As I suspected, the specific web page linked to in the article doesn't have anything. It's like nothing happened.

Anyway, this is what I get for saying, "Hey, no references! I can get away with this!"— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Finally found the link. And obviously we can't use that. But it is sort of proof that "I am not making this up" as Dave Barry used to say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits from IP addresses,

… as an accepted, and indeed invited form of editing from the highest echelons of this organization, should be given careful consideration, and not disparaged with broad brush. I am a semi-retired chem faculty member working with startups, and I edit from IP because of problems with childish ego- rather than content-accuracy driven game-playing from a very small minority of this sites' editors. (I never edit in areas where I have COI, and never sock-puppet.) My edits at Non-shoichipmetric compound were clearly not vandalism, despite the IP origin, and had no classic earmarks of vandalism; rather, they were were a constructive academic offering.

I will not revert your reversion, because life is too short for arguments where no objective standards or processes exist for scholarly conclusion. I do ask, however, that you review your reductive edit, and revert and return my edits—apart from substantive scientific disagreement, which you can record in the editor summary or Talk. Then, in future, I ask that you AGF.

See User Leprof_7272 for more information on this editor. No personal response necessary here. Just understand that I take umbrage over accusations that critical edits from a PhD chemist are, for having come from an IP, suspected vandalism. Cheers.

Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We discussed that edit, and you did revert it back then. We had this discussion months ago, and I have not touched that page since July. What on earth are you going on about? Scr★pIron^IV 14:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

When you get a minute can you look at Redd Foxx and see if the edits are right? 206.82.167.3 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing problematic there. Is there something specific that you have an issue with? Scr★pIron^IV 20:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at New York University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yairr (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ghassanids and List of Pretenders

Dear Sir, with all due respect, I don't think that you're checking the sources. First and foremost, the main source is from Zenit News Agency, one of the most respected Catholic News agency in the world only second to L'Osservatorio Romano which is the official Vatican News Agency. That satisfies more than enough Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source". All the other sources only corroborate with the aforementioned providing photos, documents, etc There are several other corroborating sources in other languages like Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. Please, stop deleting the content. Thank you.

Disruptive Edits To House Music Page

I noticed your reversion to a change made to the house music page recently and have just reverted a fresh change by the same IP address - 46.7.56.150

I'm not sure what is going on, but I suspect, perhaps, vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.212.37 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please help with vandalism

Hello, this user http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is apparently a professional "troll" skilled in manipulation. Please take a look at his Talk page. You will see a great number of complaints about his disruptive behavior. You recently supported his wholesale deletion of "unsourced" material on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Clothed_male,_naked_female page.

Whether it's "unsourced", "OR" or "SYNTH" doesn't matter that much here in my opinion.

My Talk page entries:

1) your Talk page 2) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Clothed_male,_naked_female#objection 3) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Stop_vandalizing_.22CMNF.22_article

Please take a look at complaints on his Talk page, e.g. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#File:Clement_Davies_c1955.jpg

He was also blocked in the past: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Maybe_we_could_back_away_from_the_cliff

Are you sure you're on the right side in this? I mean, isn't it obvious that this person enjoys ruining others' work? 95.28.219.174 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you are in the wrong here. Your statement on my page is a personal attack on another editor here, and will be removed. If the information you have supplied is deemed unsourced, OR, or SYNTH I will remove it myself - and if you continue to revert, you will be taken to the notice boards. Some policies and standards are negotiable, but these are not. This is an encyclopedia, and until a reliable third party source supports the information you are including, it will not be included on that page. Scr★pIron^IV 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have answered you here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Stop_vandalizing_.22CMNF.22_article Personal attacks on antisocial maniacs are called "defending the society". "If the information you have supplied is deemed unsourced, OR, or SYNTH I will remove it myself" - I didn't add anything. Just reverting mass deletions by antisocial maniac Wolfowitz. I haven't written a single line for the article in question, but have defended it from the likes of you two since 2013 (see "Objection" section on CMNF Talk page), while supporting any constructive edits. "and if you continue to revert, you will be taken to the notice boards" - wow, now that is super-scary. Try that line next time some criminal wants to rob you of your wallet. As I said, I'm not an editor, I don't even have a username, so that threat is pointless to me, but is real to YOU, since being an editor here is a fair portion of your life. "until a reliable third party source supports the information you are including, it will not be included on that page." - again, I add nothing, I'm just safeguarding the page from freaks since 2013. Freaks come and go, the page ultimately survives (see revision history for that page. We already had at least one "Wolfowitz"). 95.28.219.174 (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting you two There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 95.28.219.174 (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rock on. Let me know how that goes for you. Scr★pIron^IV 12:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do finely without me heralding to you the latest developments. It goes much better than you think. Previous freak's edits were quickly abolished and for 2 years the page was safe. Until you appeared. But that's not for long. Also, do not delete "He was also blocked in the past: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Maybe_we_could_back_away_from_the_cliff". THIS IS NOT PERSONAL ATTACK - THIS IS PURE TRUTH, AND THE SENTENCE IS FREE OF CONNOTATIONS. THE TRIAL ALWAYS CHECKS IF THE DEFENDANT HAS A HISTORY OF BEING PUNISHED FOR OTHER CRIMES. I'll start the reporting process itself soon, more details on this page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Stop_vandalizing_.22CMNF.22_article 95.28.219.174 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Velliscig

sources are in Velišovští z Velišova no same page on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.9.34 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I would respond if I understood what you were saying. Stop removing long standing and sourced content. Scr★pIron^IV 19:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Velliscig = Italian surname, Velišovští z Velišova = Czech noble family. why there are two pages about the same? Thank you!

Velliscig

Hello! Can everybody involved please sort out their differences of opnion on the TALK PAGE before starting to delete, revert, delete ad infinitum (edit war)? Otherwise a humble patroller like me cannot sort out what is happening. Thanks,Super48paul (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Take it to talk, do not edit war

You recently told me to take it to talk on the Battle of Lalsot article I have done this and im waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.192.229 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts?

Hello. Why exactly are you following me across articles, reverting every single of my edits? Relichal1 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not "every single one." Prevaricating is not a good way to start a conversation. Even though I do not owe you an explanation, I will tell you it is because I came across a problematic edit, and looked at your other contributions after doing so. Please read WP:BRD before restoring. You have claimed consesnus because you acted unilaterally and waited to be challenged.[16] You have been challenged, now discuss on the article's talk page. NOT here. Scr★pIron^IV 20:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. I can't understand some of your reverts. We can take this to the talk page, but just as an example. You said I have to have sources to remove something from the article? That's puzzling. From the oldest Croatian crest, I removed Illirian and left the rest which was already in the article, and now you come and say I have to have sources for the part I haven't introduced to the article? That doesn't make any sense. Relichal1 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of "NOT here" do you fail to understand? Do not return to my talk page. Discuss on the ARTICLE talk pages. It is just this sort of issue that is interfering with your understanding with problematic edits. Again, NOT here, but on the article talk pages. Scr★pIron^IV 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian Air Force

Hello, you removed my contributions on Russian Air Force claiming the sources are false, these are quotations from Russian MOD, the sukhoi director and finally from Janes (article: 8 June 2015), one of the most respected military research centers in the world, by the way I quoted some newspapers where these officials made these statements, these deals will be announced in the next few weeks, I'm waiting a little, I'm reverting your revert for all these reasons but as a sign of good faith, I'll revert myself waiting the announcement and signing of these deals.Markennn (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The URL's in those references were reflexive back to the article page, and pointed to no actual reference. I will look again, but unless my browser was misbehaving, then the citations were improperly formatted and thus the data was unsupported. Scr★pIron^IV 12:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

False information in Derwick Associates.

I fixed two mistakes in the article about Derwick Associates. There is false information that said that Cesar Batiz got an award for the article about Derwick. This is false. First he wrote about all companies involved not just Derwick (not mentioned in the reference) and second he got no award for that article, the article mentions that it was the best in a course and that he got to attend a conference with paid expenses. In the Wikipedia page for Cesar Batiz you can clearly see that the only award he got in his career was for something not related. This is the third time I tried to fixed it. Please help. --190.78.222.62 (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Caps on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

Why are the caps being removed? Im using the format on other pages Wikicohen (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. We do not use title case in section headers. Also, when adding comments to a user's talk page new entries should be added to the bottom of the page, not the top. Scr★pIron^IV 21:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Terre Haute South

I tell you it is of truth! I have many findings personally of insects throughout building! Tell me how to write to allow post on Wikipedia! - Samih Awad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.137.32.54 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth is immaterial. It needs to be reported by reliable third party sources AND it must be a notable event. Additionally, your IP shows you have a clear conflict of interest. When the event becomes notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, someone will do it. Write an editorial to your local newspaper about it. Scr★pIron^IV 18:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Caps on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

Why are the caps being removed? Im using the format on other pages Wikicohen (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. We do not use title case in section headers. Also, when adding comments to a user's talk page new entries should be added to the bottom of the page, not the top. Scr★pIron^IV 21:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy on D4nny.

How is that A7, exactly? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: The content I came across was a nearly blank page with no indication of notability. Just an infobox, and a single sentence, and unsourced except for the artist's website. In that state, it surely qualified. Scr★pIron^IV 12:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Civility

This is not appropriate [17]. And may get you blocked if you are uncivil like this again. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure it is. The comments were struck. Apparently, that is acceptable behavior in Wikipedia. Scr★pIron^IV 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah. You added the comments struck out because you knew you were saying inappropriate personalized comments and wanted to say them anyway? Not cool. Sorry. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool or not, it is what it is. The terms were appropriate, but then softened because I am such a nice guy. And that, in my definition, is cool enough. Scr★pIron^IV 20:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A user keeps editing in unconfirmed English Dub titles from tvguide.com

tvguide.com isn't trustworthy and has been wrong numerous times in the past. Can you please deal with the user who keeps adding the episode titles before they are confirmed on the Teletoon schedule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.161.197 (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You are both in violation of 3RR and have been edit warring for weeks. I recommend that you both stay away from this page for a while and get some perspective. If it recurs, I will report you both. There are places to report such incidents, and my user page is not one of them. Scr★pIron^IV 11:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of FNAF info on Bonnie article

The information explaining to not include anything related to FNAF has been there for months. It is present on almost all of the other pages that share a name with a FNAF character (Freddy, Chica, etc), and there hasn't been a problem there.

Additionally, addition of FNAF-related info to that page has been the topic of discussion a few times before, and the final decision every single time was to remove all FNAF-related info from non-FNAF pages. So in order to prevent anyone who is unaware of that rule from adding FNAF info, it's better to keep that sentence there to deter them.

If you really want to remove it for whatever reason, please at least explain why, instead of simply saying "there has been no consensus to keep it". --Killerwhale24680 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Worthless hidden notes in a list article because one editor has a bee in their bonnet about a video game character are not worth keeping. So, until their is a VALID reason to keep an invisible note about an obscure character (and pointing to a non-existent "consensus" on your user page does not fit the bill) then it goes. Find something constructive to do, and stay off my page. As for the other FNAF notes, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If I find them, they are going away, too. It was nice to meet you, now go away. Scr★pIron^IV 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well excuse me, I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be a place for constructive criticism instead of simple rudeness? I was hoping we could have a civilized conversation about this. The removal of my edits wasn't because I "had a bee in my bonnet", it was because that had been the consensus between other editors from several months ago. At one point I hadn't even been involved in the conflict, so I was editing on the behalf of numerous other editors with the same opinion. But if you instead want to just be downright rude about it, then I suppose there's not much I can do about that. --Killerwhale24680 (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, apparently the civility police don't like me at all. Now, what part of "stay of my page" is confusing you? Scr★pIron^IV 21:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

WTAF

Hi! You are misunderstanding WP:WTAF over at Atlantic International University. WTAF may be a reason to delete wikilinks, but it's not a reason to delete content. As WP:ARTN makes clear, notability isn't based on what's in Wikipedia. Instead of removing David Karpeles, you should have simply removed his redlink. In any case this will all soon be moot after the AIU article is deleted. I just wanted to mention this in case it comes up again in the future. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to keep it and pipe through the library link - that question had been meant for you. But the tendentious attitude of the SPA IP... Scr★pIron^IV 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And, further, with Notability and WP:WTAF - a list can be in an article, not linked, and sourced, I agree. But once a list is specified as a list of "Notable" this or that, then that particular list must contain notable entries. I was listed in the newspaper as a graduate of a particular school, and I would be sourced as a graduate. That would be list cruft, but still sourced. If it is a list of "Notable Graduates" then the entries must pass muster as being notable, and our only venue to establish and maintain notability is through the article creation process. Scr★pIron^IV 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, if the article is going to list "notable" somethings then those somethings must be notable. In this case David Karpeles was notable per our standards (e.g. [18], [19]). He doesn't need to have his own article to be included in a list of notables. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Malaysian disruptor

Thanks for the tip-off. I think all these user pages and associated talk pages should be deleted to purge their histories: the less we leave around to be recovered the more the user will be discouraged. Anyway, if you could use some support do drop me a link. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am unhappy too about Rizuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their similar focus on bigging up these articles, creating categories for dead policemen and other weird stuff relating to Malaysian security. I think a full investigation of these accounts - and their edits - is needed. Have you done anything about them yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from reporting some obvious socks to SPI, and some directly to the admin who last blocked them. I haven't noticed that particular editor. It doesn't look like they have had any edits in the last month, and no edits that have not been reverted since July. I'll keep my eyes open, but I don't have any more authority than anyone else. If I see something problematic, I'll revert or report it. Scr★pIron^IV 15:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Any time - Happy Editing! Scr★pIron^IV 17:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

1918 two dollar bill.

I added the series date section of the $2 Bill article and the 1918 FR bank note doesn't belong on that list. I intended it to include only the small size FRN of 1976 and later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblackadder3 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note the discussion on the talk page, where multiple editors decided it should be included.[20] Sometimes things get added over and above the original contributors contribution; it's just the way these things go. More information does not hurt, I am certain. Scr★pIron^IV 21:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, ScrapIronIV. 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.

- BilCat (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat: Read it, and responded. Scr★pIron^IV 18:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue Lantern Corps

Hey there, friend-o. Could you possibly clean up the mess left over in the lead of Blue Lantern Corps from before it got protected? I would do it myself but only just now got around to registering. Thanks! --Grimwelch (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

History of Paris talk page

Hello ScrapIronIV - Thanks for your thanks!

Also, would you mind reading what I left at History of Paris talk page?

[21]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. I had already reported that user at AN3 and indicated suspicions of sockpuppetry. Perhaps you could post your suspicions there, and also open up an SPI. Scr★pIron^IV 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Carvalhal

Hi there SI, from Portugal,

second time you revert my accurate additions from this person's article (here is link #2 showing how he played for F.C. Tirsense (in the 1992/93 season, 14 games no less http://www.foradejogo.net/player.php?player=196512040001&language=2), here is link #3 saying he was sacked by the Leixões S.C. ballclub in December 2002 (http://www.foradejogo.net/manager.php?manager=10&language=2), I give up. Interesting also how your summary reads "Unsourced date change" upon reversion but you remove the true category as well.

I have already contacted an admin with tons of experience in football to see if he can vouch for my nine-year experience as an editor (on a related note, seeing your last pages of contributions, I fail to see your knowledge/interest of said sport), you two sort it out if you are interested because as far as I am concerned the info in Mr. Carvalhal's article stays wrong.

Attentively, apologies if my summary when reverting you belied my intentions --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. Oh, how I do love Portugal :-) Wikipedia is not about truth or accuracy, unfortunately - it is about sourcing. When dates are changed without a source, the balance of the contribution becomes suspect as well. Unsourced date changes are one of the hallmarks of vandalism here. The reversion was to prompt you to provide a source for your changes, no more and no less. No insult was intenteded for your editing history. I see you have found one; please cite it on the page with your restoration of the information. Happy editing! Scr★pIron^IV 12:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and friendly note, greetings back. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Third Opinion Request

Hi Scr★pIron^IV! I can see that you removed my third opinion request, however, I'd like to clarify that there are are only two editors involved: myself and BrightYellowSun. However, if it is not possible to get help here, do you know of any editors that would be willing to help? I completely understand that the article needs to be balanced in order to be of value for the Wikipedia community, but in this case, it would be really helpful to get a third party to mediate the editing process. Any feedback or help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Best, TrustieCPH (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there are a couple of editors who did a very nice whitewash on a similar topic, WOT Services. I don't know how much they charge for their involvement in such article cleansing, but you could view the page history and I am certain you will find them. One of them is even an admin, so it might be very useful to you! Scr★pIron^IV 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, Scr★pIron^IV. If they charge a fee, are they seen as neutral editors by the Wiki community? Also, to my knowledge, there are only two editors involved in the dispute I asked for help with on the Trustpilot page: myself and BrightYellowSun, so I'm still wondering why my WP:3O request was removed. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, TrustieCPH (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my response was a bit tongue-in-cheek regarding those particular editors; certainly, they did not seem neutral to me. But the result on that article is the result you wish to see. As far as the article you are talking about, I saw recent responses to other sections with contributions from other editors, but on further examination those were older posts. If you choose to restore the WP:3O request, I will not remove it again. My reasoning was flawed. Or, more simply, I was wrong. Scr★pIron^IV 12:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. (see here). I am posting here as required by policy. - ^theWOLFchild 17:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Um... no.

October 2015

Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Virginia-class submarine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 13:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not need a source for minor corrections, which is all that was. Look at the tables, only 12 have been completed, yet the infobox stated 13. I made a simple correction based on even simpler math. Perhaps if you'd checked that yourself, instead of being so eager to revert, you'd see that. Also, you if you had bothered to look at my history or contribs, you'd see I am not a "beginner". I, however, looked at yours and see that you are indeed new here. I would suggest you spend more time getting to know your way around before you start misusing and even abusing the various processes here. If you need further help or guidance, go to the WP:Help Desk. Note I have moved your comments here and I will ask that you stay off my talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 14:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting comment, but I have seen your contributions. I am not impressed. Continued unsourced changes to existing pages will be reverted. You are welcome to stay off my page as well. Scr★pIron^IV 14:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You're "not impressed"? This isn't about "impressing" you. This is about you not knowing wtf you're doing. You have only been here for what...? 5 or 6 months? I'll say it again... my edits to United States Navy ships were updating and clean-up. They were brought in line with other USN articles, such List of current ships of the United States Navy, (which I do quite a bit of work on) and any individual articles on ship classes. Not every single edit requires a source. Some edits are just typo corrections, others are just expanding existing information or making the page more consistent. You will note, for example, that the aircraft carriers were in error. There is only 1 more planned right now, not 2. There was no source for that before, yet your revert has now re-added info that is both unsourced and incorrect. (that was your second revert by the way. Should you revert a 3rd time within the next 24 hours, you could be blocked for edit warring. (I have only reverted once so far) Read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR).

Wikipedia is supposed to a collegial effort. If you continue to storm around the project with your bad attitude, undoing people's work - without reason - and spouting off insults, you won't last long here. I'll say it again, ask for help and learn what you're doing before making anymore random, blind reverts. - ^theWOLFchild 15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, you have issues with reading comprehension. WP:BRD - YOU were Bold, and you were reverted to the status quo. You actually removed a source which I had provided in one of your "edits" - and I do use that term loosely. And, if you claim to be able to read someone's history, then you obviously don't understand dates or calendars. Also, you have now posted to my page TWICE since being warned to stay away. Keep it up, funny Child. I have not yet been uncivil, but I am more than willing to start. Scr★pIron^IV 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Slow down

Why are you in a hurry to revert everything, without even knowing what you're reverting? (re: this edit. I made multiple edits to update and clean up that page, and bring it in-line with the other up-to-date and well-sourced USN articles that I work on. And why are posting your edit summaries IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? Do you think that somehow better gets your point across? And... what point? You are screaming about "adding sources", yet there weren't any... and you didn't add any. All you did was undo all the cleaning up and updating I did and return the page to the mess I found it in.

Again... you are new here. Slow Down... and learn your way around before you go jumping all over other people's work. If your not sure... ask. There are multiple resources here to help you figure what to and when to do it, and when not to do anything. WP:Help Desk is a good place to start. Also read Wikipedia:Reverting while you're at it. - ^theWOLFchild 14:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not new here. Unsourced changes will be reverted. PERIOD. Add sources, or stay off Wikipedia. Read WP:RS and WP:V. Maybe the WP:Help Desk is where you should go to learn about sourcing requirements. Your changes were challenged, and reverted, per WP:BRD. You have plainly refused discussion, as evidenced by your previous comment. What part of "stay off my page" do you fail to understand? Scr★pIron^IV 15:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me the original version was also unsourced, and Thewolfchild was just providing updates. If you want to be strict about sourcing, would you remove the unsourced content? Shall I block you both for edit-warring over good-faith additions?

That said, while the information Thewolfchild provided can be verified, laziness is not an excuse. @Thewolfchild: you are getting this information from somewhere, please reference it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

While I have removed unsourced content in some cases, removing long standing content wholesale (even when it is unsourced) is often frowned upon. There is a fine line between expecting updates to be sourced, and gutting articles because they lack citations. Per WP:BRD the challenged material should have been sourced when it was reintroduced, if I am not mistaken, as the reason it was challenged was for a lack of sourcing. If my understanding of that process is flawed, please let me know. Scr★pIron^IV 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, technically you were correct in your reverts, and Thewolfchild should supply sources. However, if an article contains erroneous unsourced information, and someone comes along and corrects it in good faith, the article is improved. The facts added are verifiable (I could verify one or two about ships being planned vs under construction), so it seems that the article was improved by those edits and nothing dubious was added (I could be wrong, of course). WP:BRD is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline, it's an essay that describes a good practice. Such practices should improve articles, but I don't see your reverts as an improvement.

This is a content dispute. I would prefer to see some talk page discussion, or sources added. Thewolfchild running off to WP:AN3 was premature (I have closed that case), but locking the article is a viable alternative in a content dispute. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hope folks don't mind my dropping by and offering a suggestion. I have had some good interactions with ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs), but I have to support Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) in the first instance. Warring against a much more experienced editor is asking for trouble. That comment, What part of "stay off my page" do you fail to understand? particularly troubles me - it smacks of ownership (that is to say, the part that any experienced Wikipedia editor fails to understand is its relevance). The idea that challenged facts must always be properly cited when restored is not tenable. In the present case suggest adding one or more citation tags - see Wikipedia:Citation needed. This is a common option, which draws attention to the lack of citation while allowing uninvolved editors to consider and discuss the material at their leisure before making an appropriate update. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Steel, you're wrong one point in particular: Editors are permitted to ask other users to stop posting on their own talk pages, and a user who ignores that can be considered to be engaging in harassment/hounding. That's been held up at numerous ANIs. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And please note that TWC stated to Scrap, "and I will ask that you stay off my talk page", per this diff. In both cases, the context is their own talk pages, not the articles. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't mind at all. My issue came with the first post on my page, which was patronizing and passive aggressive. Come to my page and the first thing you do is call me a newbie and tell me to go to the Help Desk, then end that greeting with a request to stay off their talk page - yeah, I'm not going to be all, "Yes, sir! Yes, sir! Three bags FULL!" It contained a warning to stay off their page, and I responded in kind. And who is to say who has more experience here? Is it time, or is it edits? Certainly my mainspace edit count is greater than their entire contribution history. So, who gets to call who a newbie? As for sources, I have been dealing with unsourced changes to lists of military equipment for a long enough time to know better. Edit war? Not exactly my style, but we all respond to the input we receive. If said user had gone to the article talk page, or even just added the sources they were looking at, it would have been a non-issue.

Oh, LOOK! They are adding sources now! That might have been the best way to respond the first time. Scr★pIron^IV 20:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did not realise that the "get off my page" referred to this talk page, I had assumed it was the article under contention. I owe you an apology for that misunderstanding, ScrapironIV, and I am glad my fears are unfounded. However let us also note that TWC's similar request was based on a long-established preference and was in no way personally aimed at ScrapironIV. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No apology required, misunderstandings happen here in text. Thank you for it, though. Scr★pIron^IV 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bank failure

added links pointing to Santander, Fortis, State Street and Eurobank

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tip

On Los Angeles Class submarines, it clearly said that there were 39 in active service and 23 decommissioned and on the paragraph it said 41 active and 21 decommissioned so I changed it to match but then you reversed it. Why?

Also, I'm pretty sure more than just 3 Los Angeles Class submarines have been scrapped Brainiac15 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there have been plenty scrapped. Trouble is that there are no sources being provided for the boats whose status is ceing changed to scrapped. It's all about sources. Scr★pIron^IV 12:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Cair Paravel - Latin School

I provided information directly from the school's site (cpls.org) and also cited the news article (following the citing guidelines) for the other addition http://cjonline.com/news/2015-09-26/cair-paravel-growth-blessing-and-challenge - please check again and correct your deletion. Thank you. btw - it's not helpful when you 'ask' for additional information, only to delete immediately. No wonder I don't normally update inaccurate data. It's too time consuming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.238.218 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please explain it to me how I violated the neutral point of view??

I have done the research and found very reliable sources and added them.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

______________________

Hi ScrapIronIV, I have also added some very reliable sources on the nuclear triad page, including: NPT and stripes. Please go take a look at them. I truly did my research on this. I never used any Chinese sources, all western English source, just to let you know that I am not some state sponsored person, I also grew up in the United States, just happen to follow Chinese military stuffs and other military stuffs as well.

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/china/nuclear/ http://www.stripes.com/news/on-land-and-sea-china-s-nuclear-capability-growing-1.299381

Thank you.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those sources states that China is a Nuclear triad, merely that they are developing their triad capacity. What you have done is synthesize the information on some pages, and through original research, have determined that they are a Nuclear Triad power by the "true definition" that you have expanded from yet another source. This is neither neutral, nor is it in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Now, please take the discussion to the article's talk page.

You are now edit warring across multiple articles. And, for future reference, comments added to a user's talk page go on the bottom, not the top. Scr★pIron^IV 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

American Horror Story: Hotel

Hi, you must not be very familiar with the series or what is going on the page because your reason for reversion was erroneous, it almost seemed spiteful. Recurring actors have already aired during the season of the series therefore making them applicable for recurring status. Please take the time to fully investigate an article before making such a tenuous mistake. LLArrow (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is no mistake, and there is no cause for me to be spiteful to you. Guest and Recurring roles are not fully defined, and unless you can cite a third party source which is claiming those titles for characters and actors in the series, then Wikipedia does not report them that way. It's about sources, not spite. It was not in error, it was in accordance with policy. Please take the time to fully investigate Wikipedia policies before running to another editor with complaints about ignorance or spite. Scr★pIron^IV 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I have never heard of any policy that requires you to provide a verifiable source AFTER the series has aired. Before of course, but not after. LLArrow (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And the series has not aired. A few episodes have. Unless you have sources, it's all WP:OR. Scr★pIron^IV 18:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources were there before it had aired, then some editor removed them. As EVERYONE does on every TV series article I've ever contributed to. This issue is not worth getting into a mudslinging match over. If you want to lead the charge on removing every "Recurring" category on every currently airing series then you have about a years worth of work ahead of you, but please don't start here. LLArrow (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have the sources, provide them; I'm not one to remove properly cited content. I have no issue with it being there; I have an issue with it being there without reliable sources defining it as such. Scr★pIron^IV 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not address my other, more pressing claim, this seems to be a case of witch hunt. I can think of at least 30 currently airing U.S. television seasons that feature a Recurring category without a single reference attached. Why this article? Why kick this particular beehive. It all seems a bit premeditated and malicious. LLArrow (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting claim, that I am on some sort of witch hunt. This particular one is on my watch list, others are not. Lots of articles on Wikipedia should be adjusted, edited, corrected; I am not on a crusade to fix them all. I edit what I find, as does everyone else. Premeditated and malicious? Really? I have never interacted with you before to my knowledge. Don't come to my page with such accusations. Scr★pIron^IV 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The very reason you come to a user's Talk page is to discuss an issue with that user, if you take my claim as an accusation and not a query that's your prerogative, but let's not resort to sarcasm and barking orders. I'm moving on from this dispute because it is in no way productive for either of us. I want to apologize because I have let my temper get the better of me a few time whilst engaging with you, and I'm sorry for that. Looking over your edit history (something I should've done before biting your head off), I see that your are a well intentioned contributor and deserve a modicum of respect, which is more than I dealt. I hope we can move past this and continue to make Wikipedia a better place. Good day. LLArrow (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

some advice please.

You gave me some very useful feedback following my Topic Ban on Cold Fusion back in February that I am very grateful for. You mentioned that I should contribute elsewhere and learn the ropes better and that in six months or so I could appeal the ban. I was wondering what exactly the process is for appealing a topic ban and if you could enlighten me. Also, what the chance is of actually succeeding with such an appeal, as well as whether there are possible negative ramifications if I try, (i.e. am I better off just waiting it out). Basically, I hate having this mark on my record, and would rather appeal it and have it on the record that I've learned from the situation than run the clock out ideally. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  03:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I have been thinking on how to respond. I don't see myself as being very useful for advice in this case. I've never even been able to talk myself out of a 48 hour block... The way things are done here often confuse me. They give you rules, then bend they or break them. Either you're part of the "In-Crowd" or not; if you are under Admin protection, you are nearly golden. If you toe the correct political line, you are equally good. Say the wrong thing to the wrong "protected" editor and you're gone. There is a Cabal. Some thoughts are sacrosanct; some perspectives are toxic. Cold Fusion is a toxic subject. If you concentrate on the politically correct topics, and kiss enough of the politically correct Admin posterior, you might get an exemption to write on cold fusion. Personally, I am staying away from all controversial topics, as much as possible. Scr★pIron^IV 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

At risk of poking my nose in where it is not wanted, may I offer my view? The Wikipedia editing community is a complex microcosm of humanity, an anarchy left largely to govern itself. As such, in order to do better than a million monkeys it has built a labyrinth of policies, guidelines and advisory essays for itself, along with some account-blocking sanctions and a system of admins to help police it all. There is no cabal, but there are knots of people who sometimes will share a point of view on some topic or other and for a while will act like one. The rules broadly divide into what you can write and how to engage with other editors. Many a smartass will game the rules - a sin only if you are caught gaming them. A typical ploy is to break WP:CIVIL then pounce on you for snapping back. The novice stands little chance. I really wouldn't worry about the ban, it will fade into the past. I got burned once or twice in the early days too - I guess only Jimmy Wales is guaranteed a clean record, though he has been rude enough to me without turning a hair. OTOH I have also got a couple of disruptive editors blocked for the duration. I'd say - first, respect WP:CIVIL if it kills you, and second, don't be in a hurry, there's always next week. Anyway, if you get stuck in a mess and need a hand, you are welcome to drop a line on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Jabalpur Engineering College

Hi there,

Just saw your edit, I totally agree with you about the neutrality of articles on Wiki, keeping only the vital info and excluding the trivial. In fact, I removed some of the info myself from the very article in question. And although I'm not the original author or a major contributor to the article, I would say that the article in the previous edit was perfectly neutral and had verified info. Some points that I'd like to highlight:

1. The college's original name was Government Engineering College, Jubbulpore owing to the fact the city itself was called Jubbulpore prior to our Independence.

2. The "Courses Offered", "Housing" and the "Admissions" sections are very important because most of the potential students / applicants are not natives of the city and internet is their only source of info and being a govt institute no one really cares to update the college's website, and they have pretty hard time getting the info about the courses, exams, accommodation etc

3. The "library", "TPO", "Alumni" sections are well sourced.

4. The "scholarships" and "projects" sections need to be there because those are govt schemes and a lot of corruption is being going on because the students, alumni and other people concerned are not aware of them. It has been covered by all of media and a Wiki article explains the severity. Here's a link to it [[22]]

I urge you to let it be there so that students are well aware of their rights and privileges. I hope you shall consider my request as this a govt institute and no one will benefit from promoting the institute, but it can be useful to keep a check on the management and provide a single-window / single-page info to the readers. You can reply here itself rather than on my talk page as I don't have an account and I'll check this space for updates. Thanks and take care! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.31.205 (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The sections removed had no sources associated with them, and were removed per WP:RS and WP:V. Whether it was verified by someone before it was posted is not the issue; the article needs to be verifiable by the sources provided in the article. Exhaustive lists of of courses were removed per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Please read those associated links, and follow it up with close attention to WP:COI.

Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a CV , advertisement, or guide. If the school desires a "single window/Single page" solution for information, then that should be handled by the school's website. They are free to provide a link to the official website in the infobox and the external links section. Scr★pIron^IV 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

regarding 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs)

User 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) who has edit-warred Nuclear triad and INS Vishal few days ago is now back as 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs) and he is now back doing the same edits to the pages he repeated violating WP:NPOV on INS Vishal and now has done the same against consensus on Nuclear triad and . He appears to have disregard for consensus, NPOV and identifying reliable sources. I stopped reverting his edits so as not to violate 3RR. 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) was reported and blocked as being a sockpuppet of Shulinjiang (talk · contribs). He continuosly IP hops and comes back and does the same violative edits to the same pages. 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs). I do not know what are required to open a sockpuppet investigation so can you please look into it. standardengineer (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The admins have taken action. That IP user is now blocked standardengineer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, it will help me better to know what to look for. I didn't look at a computer all weekend - quite refreshing! Scr★pIron^IV 14:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Type 99

Hi,

It looks like you are not understanding that your reverts to the Type 99 page are unnecessary.

I added in credible, Western sources. Please do check them.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Armor_(magazine)

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/dennis-j-blasko

Your reverts also removed information that was sourced from these journals/books. I hope you can be less obstinate and actually read the edits.

Thank you.

RedArrowSG (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

It looks like you are not understanding that your additions to the Type 99 page are unnecessary.

You are adding promotional state-sponsored information and unreliable sources.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Armor_(magazine) <--- a WP:CIRCULAR reference

Your additions also removed information that was sourced from more reliable sites. I hope you can be less POV and realize that this is an encyclopedia, not a state sponsored propaganda machine.

Thank you.

Scr★pIron^IV 15:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi ScrapIronIV, while I value your opinions, I do not agree with them and I see several problems with your current approach with regards to the Type 99 article. Firstly, by removing others contributions in whole without discussion, there is nothing for others to work with or corrected for. Secondly, repeatedly calling other sources as "propaganda" does not help, as that is an ad hominem even when not directed against a person. POV/NPOV issue which you seem to be truly concerned about is not a matter of WP:RS.

I invite you to Talk:Type 99 tank page for further discussion. It will save all of us a lot of headaches. 86.133.195.173 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this. One of your so call "reliable source" [23] has statements like this as content:

The body armor structure using the original Type 99 armored tanks foundation structure. The new type of explosive reactive armor suit of armor, greatly increases the tank's armor protection. In the face of emerging Asia, Japan and South Korea the latest main battle tanks like the enhanced armor-piercing blows, with a certain amount of protection increased capacity.

What?! Sorry, but I don't agree such broken English can be called reliable. 86.133.195.173 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) globalsecurity.org is a spin-off from the fas.org Federation of American Scientists site, and as such is considered reliable even if some of the grammar is poor. When I worked for the Department of Defense in the 1990s, we considered it a valuable public source of intelligence information, and we knew that other countries felt the same way. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is one or two sentences, I would agree. The problem is that specific page is full of the same kind of broken English. That specific page is clearly not up to standard, especially if we want to be extremely stringent about sources. I could go on about other issues with fas.org and globalsecurity.org, but I think it will be better if we can take this discussion back to Talk:Type 99 tank.

86.133.195.173 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm driving at is that you are throwing out the bathwater with the baby. Know how to be an editor. Especially when you repeatedly reinsert the wrong PinYin name of the Type 99.

I fail to see how the professional journal of the US Army is a circular referencing or is any less reliable than the PDFs currently cited as sources. I linked the pages to illustrate the credibility of the sources below. Perhaps you mistakenly thought those were the references?

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2000/MAY_JUN/ArmorMayJune2000web.pdf Article written by James Warford The Chinese Army Today: Tradition and Transformation for the 21st Century (Asian Security Studies) by Dennis J. Blasko

I really do think you should furnish elaborations and evidence to substantiate the claims that the historic information of the tank's development and deployment is "promotional state-sponsored information" and "propaganda". Would the edits promote or advertise a particular cause or POV? RedArrowSG (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

All, please take this to the article talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 13:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oi, where's that bloody Fiat article?

WP:GAN at least I reckon! Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I never put it up. I have not found any better references yet, and have been struggling with how to expand the lede as you recommended. I did create a new Fiat article recently, the Fiat 28-40 HP It is also a work in progress. Scr★pIron^IV 17:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

James Chichester, Earl of Belfast Article Assessment

I noticed that you have been involved a dispute with User:89.101.220.151 regarding the WikiProject Biography assessment of the James Chichester, Earl of Belfast article, a request for re-assessment has been submitted to the WikiProject Biography Assessment Requests page by that user, and I would like to hear your thoughts on the article's assessment before I make a decision on the assessment request.--TommyBoy (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@TommyBoy: Unless there is specific notability granted by possession of the title, the redirect remains appropriate. The only biographical information is lineage and marriage, with no other indication of notability. This information is appropriate for the section of the target article of the original redirect, not a stand-alone article, in my opinion. The other issue that remains, of course, is that the article has been created automatically by an IP modifying a redirect, instead of going through the AfC process. Hopefully your review will resolve that last bit. Thanks for looking at it. Scr★pIron^IV 13:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. While I am inclined to agree with User:89.101.220.151 that the article warrants re-assessment in its current state, I am hesitant to re-assess the article until this dispute has been resolved, and if you do not feel it is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article, I would recommend nominating it for deletion or merger.--TommyBoy (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The redirect was relevant. It should be restored; the dispute seeks consensus. I backed off when others added content; it deserves appropriate assessment. For me, it should not have been allowed to be "created" to begin with - but I will not stand in the way of progress. The only question that needs to be asked is whether there was enough information added to justify the individual to have an article, rather than maintaining its prior existence as a section under his father. Scr★pIron^IV 14:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If you still do not feel it is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article, I would repeat my earlier recommendation about nominating it for deletion or merger because either of those options would result in a community discussion and consensus-based decision regarding the article's status.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Per your comments on the Article's Talk page, I have re-assessed the article as Stub for now, but if you have any additional comments or concerns regarding the article's assessment, please feel free to contact me.--TommyBoy (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Scr★pIron^IV 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

List of competitive eaters changes

They were all related to IFOCE rankings. IFOCE has renamed itself Major League of Eating. It would've been more than easy enough for you quickly fact-check this.

Why remove the changes? Why not simply inform about the need to add references, instead? Inefficient and waste of time.

Don't really care about the changes. Not that important. However, if Wiki values correct facts, the changes were accurate, which, again, would've been very simply checked.

Like many people with "editor/moderator" privileges, you seem to have gotten a bit drunk on your delusions of grandeur. A shame.

http://www.majorleagueeating.com/rankings.php

Then cite it when you add it, per WP:CHALLENGE. Adding such content without adding the citation you are looking at while making the change is inefficient and a waste of time. Scr★pIron^IV 14:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry if I did anything stupid, but I had to remove patently false views and ideas being presented ("Afghanistan is not part of South Asia, etc") Its simply laughable when India provides so much assistance to Afghanistan and when Afghanistan is considered a part of South Asia by virtually every authority in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.16.191 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing other people's talk page comments is not acceptable, even when you believe their views are incorrect. Scr★pIron^IV 20:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mawra Hocane while discussion was asked on the article talk page. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Justice007 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you even know what an edit war is Justice007? Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating; one edit yesterday, another edit two weeks ago - yup, definitely an edit war :-) Scr★pIron^IV 13:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

open orthodoxy

Hi, Thanks for your edit. Try to keep an eye on the related pages Avi Weiss, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Sara Hurwitz, and Shmuel Herzfeld. Council2 (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Saks Fifth, etc

Hi scrapiron, thank you for suggesting I go to the talk page to express my reasoning behind my edits during an edit war that I could not understand for the life of me. On the bright side I am becoming a wiz at sourcing! I am very busy and will get back to editing tonight but I appriciate your patience with me, thank you very much. Warm regards from Albany Ny, -Brad Hampton

ScrapIron, I appreciate your work for wiki, however I find it hard to believe you actually think I am "warring" with any one. I created this account to upload a picture. I have listened to and followed your suggestions. I have been editing on wikipedia since 2004 and I am very aware of the terms and conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad90210 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have been here that long then certainly you should know how to sign your posts and how to leave messages on others' talk pages. The main issue at this point is that you are providing invalid sources on multiple pages, including replacing newer sources with older ones for census info. I've been trying very hard to assume good faith, but you keep reverting without discussion when your sources are challenged. Please take all conversation to the articles' talk pages, and when you get reverted, discuss it. Please read WP:BRD Scr★pIron^IV 20:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not provided invalid sources, and the census info was exactly the same which you would know if you actually read them. I don't often write on talk pages, I usually don't have time to argue on wikipedia. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad90210 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The official term is "luxury" https://www.naturabisse.com/partner/bergdorf-goodman, high end insinuates a price strategy, not quality of goods. Please stop being disruptive Brad90210 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Whose "official" term? If you have a WP:COI on these pages, I would suggest that you disclose it. In the meantime, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I have tried to be nice. Wikilinking to a disambiguation page removes value from the article, regardless of whose "official" term it may be. Please read WP:CIR - if you are unable to properly post on a user's talk page (and the fact that I have had to modify every comment you have made to put it where it belongs) after 11 years of editing Wikipedia, then there is nothing more I can do to help you. In the meantime, you can afford me the "luxury" of your absence. Do not post on my talk page again. Take it to ARTICLE talk space. I REPEAT, in case you have some difficulty parsing english:

• DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN. Scr★pIron^IV 21:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Blatant reversion-warring

As the subject says, I strongly suggest that you refrain from joining MONGO in blatantly ignoring WP policy (both WP:STEALTH and WP:JUSTAPOLICY), and trying to game WP:3RR. A vague hand-wave in the direction of a policy is no substitute for reasoning, sources, or both.
Please restore your undo, unless you're willing to - again - provide reasoning, sources, or both. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not happening. Scr★pIron^IV 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As you wish. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Youre entitled to your opinion but no one is doing anything wrong here.--MONGO 19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Pittura infamante

Hi, can you please tell me what I have to do? I've stopped reverting the edits in that page (Pittura infamante), but now what must I do? I've edited the Italian IPA according to these conventions, I've also shown that en.wikipedia itself proves that the nasal in the sequence 'NV' or 'NF' is phonetically transcripted /ɱ/. Where am I being wrong? I really can't see it... It's just User:Icarus of old who's sure to be the right one because he can't fail anything, so I must logically be wrong if I'm editing differently from him. How to behave? I really don't know... And consider this: you're continuing his edit war in his place because he can't make any other reverts or he will violate the 3 reverts rule. It's like a 2 versus 1, do you understand it? He's obtaining what he wants because he knows that if I continue I'll be banned. While you can safely continue in his place... Is this correct on your opinion? I don't think so, but I came here to ask you instructions: I've stopped reverting, I'd provided sources on his talk page but he undid them, I've reported this problem in admins' noticeboard to ask for help... What to do now? Please, answer me, ScrapIronIV!

Sources do not get provided on user talk pages, they are to be included in the article itself when you make significant changes. Wikipedia is not a reference unto itself; external sources are required. And accusing editors of collusion on the noticeboards is not a way to win friends or influence people. Scr★pIron^IV 20:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry for the mistake, I wanted to edit his page but I came back on yours, I had no reason to vandalise if I was trying to get help. About Pittura infamante, the edit was first made by another user, it was removed just because he started vandalizing other pages, so also that correct edit was undone. On this wiki there're other pages with Italian names where it's used the /ɱ/ IPA symbol for the sequence 'NF' or 'NV'. It's also full of Italian IPA transcriptions changed or even created every day by Italian users like me, and there's not a source provided for each single page, at most if someone edits or reverts a correct transcription a source is indicated in the edit summary (see, for example, the summaries of october 7th and 8th in this page history. I'm really wellmeaning, I'd just like to know what to do now: either both the wikipedian pages I linked contain bad information and the Journal I provided as source is worthless, or I'm right and the IPA transcription must contain /ɱ/, not /m/ nor /n/. I apologise for the time you're spending for me, but please tell me what I should do.

I just did. Provide your source as an inline citation when you make the change. Please read WP:INCITE for instruction. Scr★pIron^IV 20:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Just a question: since it's about 'correcting IPA transcriptions according to en.wikipedia itself' (in Help:IPA for Italian and Labiodental nasal sources are already provided), if I do what you said, I'll have to do it: a) from now on; and b) on every single page where somebody has modified an IPA transcription (such as that page whose history I linked). Right? Or wrong? If I'm right, no problem. If I'm wrong... Then why making distinctions between Pittura infamante and anything else? Why must I add a source in the article instead of indicate it in the edit summary 'there' but not anywhere else? That's what seems absurd to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.208.20 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative site run by volunteers, and as such it is not always consistent. If you change a page while nobody is watching, and nobody notices after the fact, it slides through. If you always follow policies when it comes to sourcing, you can't go wrong. Scr★pIron^IV 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the phonetic transcription to be in line with Help:IPA for Italian. The anonymous users are correct about Italian pronunciation, though we prefer to transcribe the labiodental nasal as [m] since readers will not appreciate the difference. Cited claims at Italian phonology make it clear that [n] does not appear before [f], so the pronunciation with [n] seems to violate Italian phonotactic constraints as we understand them. If infamante is pronounced with an [n], some serious sourcing is required to prove it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My issue was with the edit warring and failure to cite a source when challenged. Talk to the anons about it; my edits to the article were not from a love of the topic. Scr★pIron^IV 19:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sacramento Clubs

The data from 2012 is not true and should not be on the page. The section on InterVarsity does not belong in this section and should be moved to the controversy area. Why are you blocking the changes when they are inline with how it should be changed. I put comments but you are not reading them. <Moved unsigned comment from User talk:130.86.148.13 >

You did not move the content, you removed it. Three times. I doubt anyone would have contested a move. Take it to the article talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 22:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Generations page

Please explain how the citation is "poorly cited". You cant just pick and choose which sources you agree with. If you want to add something -- then just add it. I'm reaching out to you first on your talk page. If you continue with reverting everything without a good reason (i.e. the Dale Carnegie edit on Generation Z that is a self-published source etc.) then I will go to an admin board. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you choose to learn to read, the edit summary was "Properly cited" - describing where I added a citation to justify my edit. I have plenty of good reasons for reverting your inaccurate edit. I just added another citation to support the correct dates. Scr★pIron^IV 21:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and PLEASE (please!please!please!please!please!) take me to an admin board. I'll go grab some popcorn while you do it. Scr★pIron^IV 21:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you like butter with that? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4B:3F3C:E92B:5B77 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you never answered the self-published source question in connection with the edit you made regarding the Dale Carnegie Training source on Millennials. Are you going to support the rules of the site on this one? 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Conspiratorial IP talk page edit

Ok, I have absolutely no idea what this IP edit was on about. Being both an occasional new page patroller and someone who keeps a lookout for WP:FRINGE material, I get my fair share of amusing crazy on my talk page, but usually I can at least guess why someone left an incoherent rant on there. Not so this time. As the person who reverted it, do you have any idea? :)
Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kolbasz: I'm not sure how this individual targeted you, but I kicked off his rant by identifying him as a sock of a blocked user. He first posted on mine, then put the same nonsense on a bunch of user pages before being blocked. Maybe you interacted with him in the from the past? [24] Scr★pIron^IV 13:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of my edits have intersected with any of his. Oh well. I guess this just means that the conspiracy goes even deeper. ;-)
Thanks! Kolbasz (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing talk page comments

How does correcting something constitute vandalism? --Doris Kami (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC) <Moved comment to the bottom of the talk page>

@Doris Kami: Changing what others have written is wrong, and is specifically against policy. Correct others' comments in a new comment of your own, do not rewrite what others have written on the talk pages. Scr★pIron^IV 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Saks

You undoing my addition per WP:CRYSTAL and per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad90210 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. Oh, and I love the nonsense about you forging a fake "Thank you" for yourself.[25] You really take the cake. Scr★pIron^IV 13:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You amuse me. I'm writing about a store I'm interested in, nothing fake about that. You however live on here and invalidly use arguments to delete information you do not like. You could not explain to me how my addition applies to your claims. Brad90210 (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that if I do have any talk page stalkers will get a kick out of the link I just shared. [26] Writing a thank-you note to yourself, forging a nonexistent username, and piping it to a real user account.

You need to read the policies I linked, and then you need to discuss it on the ARTICLE's talk page. Not my user talk page. Do you think that maybe you can try to understand that? I know it's tough for you. Adding fancruft - whether it is about a musician, a TV show or a store - is not encyclopedic. Scr★pIron^IV 13:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry is this supposed to make any sense? Brad90210 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not discuss anything with sockmasters or their puppets. Leave my talk page, and never return. Scr★pIron^IV 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Best course of action ScrapIronIV samtar ^{t} 15:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's why you just edited my page right? Why do you insist on accusing me of being a sock puppet when you don't even believe it yourself. Sounds like you believe anything you want just to convince yourself you're right. Brad90210 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been asked to leave my page, never to return. Failing to follow that instruction is grounds for sanction. Do yourself a favor, and never post here again. Scr★pIron^IV 16:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

All tagged and blocked, we got 'em! samtar ^{t} 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus required to create an article?

Can you point to me where it says that consensus is required to change a redirect into an article? You restored a the redirect to Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. That article does not mention Professional Aviation Safety Specialists at all and as far as I can tell it has never mentioned Professional Aviation Safety Specialists. Why should it redirect there? 155.178.180.6 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

1) If you have a conflict of interest you MUST report it. Follow that link and read it, in addition to the information I will place on your talk page.

2) If you really want to create a new article, take it through the AfC (Articles for Creation) process, instead of bypassing it.

3) Take it to the article talk page.

Scr★pIron^IV 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

1) I do not have a conflict of interest as I am not a member of the union even though I do work for the FAA.

2) Why do I have to go through AFC?

3) Take it what article talk page? The talk page of a redirect that until I expanded into an article had wxactly one edit in over 5 years?

A) Again where does it say I have to have consensus to change a bad redirect into an article?

155.178.180.6 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

2) Make a draft, and submit it. That way it actually gets reviewed.

3) The talk page of the redirect where you want the article.

A) It has been challenged, we disagree; therefore, it needs consensus.

Now, take it to the article talk page. My user page is not for article content. Scr★pIron^IV 19:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Any editor my boldly convert a redirect into an article, particularly where the redirect target does not so much as mention the redirefted term, provided that the new articel is about a subjet that is notable. There is no requirement to obtain consensus for such a change, nor is there any requirement for any new article to go through the AfC process. I often recommend that process to comparatively new editors, or on subjects where notability might be dubious, but it is never required, and it is not IMO appropriate to revert a change solely on the basis that AfC was not used, or that no advance discussion was held before converting a redir to an article. If there is an actual policy-based reason for objecting to the change, that is another matter, but you have not cited any such reason. Reverting good-faith edits and telling other editors that they are required to jump through hoops which are not ijn fact required violates WP:BURO and begins to approach disruptive editing. DES ^(talk) 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Any revert of a bold edit needs to be discussed. What I shared was what would need to happen to get me to change my opinion on the subject. I think that's called "discussion" or some such. Once I was reverted, with explanation, by another editor, I not only left it be - I thanked the editor who reverted me. That is not disruptive editing, that's collaboration. Scr★pIron^IV 20:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, what was it about the article that the IP wrote that you disagreed with? -- GB fan 21:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The inclusion of all WP:PRIMARY sources except one, a longstanding redirect, and and the appearance of WP:COI. Those items combined made it look sketchy; so I brought attention to it. Scr★pIron^IV 21:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A proper revert should normally be discussed, as suggested in WP:BRD (there are exceptions). But that doesn't mean that the edit must be discussed before it is made. And a proper revert generally includes a reason why the reverting editor thinks the original edit should not be made. There is a difference between "X is what would change my opinion" and "You must do X". Saying the latter, particularly with the (IMO) unfortunate tone shown above, is what I mostly objected to, as well as the implication that to change a redir to an article requires advance consensus. I still haven't seen any substantive (as opposed to process-based) objections to this edit from you. But since you have dropped your objections, I don't need to say anything further. DES ^(talk) 21:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

User:ScrapIronIV, because you have not attempted to work with other editors on the issue of the OpenIndiana thumbnails, and continue to delete these after all other editors in the RfC have agreed there is no violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, I am requesting WP dispute resolution about this matter. Huihermit (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

Please explain how declines in Lumia sales fall under this policy as earlier sales reports are admitted to the article and the decline in sales is both relevant to the article and product in question as notable. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what it says, and an encyclopedia does not report quarterly business results. Scr★pIron^IV 17:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why are sales reports listed in Microsoft Lumia#Sales and Sony Mobile#Sales and market share it seems more like you have something personally against me then are actually interested in editing to improve the content of the article, sales and revenue are mentioned all over corporate websites and if you'd look at almost every other article like Samsung Galaxy S series#Sales this is the rule and not the exception, I will continue this conversation in Talk:Microsoft Lumia and copy the above conversation.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your large scale teardown of a town's page

I do not like what you've done. You came to a page that i have recently edited and decimated it, a page which i don't believe you have ever edited before, and it seems like it is a vengeful act because i recently pinged you at a page in an attempt to discuss what appeared to be an edit war. It feels like you are coming after me to take revenge because you saw a page that i recently edited, assumed that it was something close to me, and then tore it down using a technical reason. It feels like an act of abusing the rules to bully a user. I am bringing this to the ANI board. SageRad (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I have not edited this page as a personal attack on you. I edit a LOT of pages wading through unsourced fancruft, deleting unsourced sections wholesale when they are in violation of policy. The fact that you have taken it as some personal vendetta is unfortunate, but I can't tell you how to feel. Towns and schools are often full of such; this is not unique to you personally. I can point to a dozen such articles that I have needed to strip of such trivial information. I have BOLDLY edited, and if there is something which has been removed that you feel needs to go back, then find a source for it before you do. Scr★pIron^IV 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As a perfect example, follow the discussion right above this one. Nothing personal at all, just the removal of unencyclopedic cruft. Scr★pIron^IV 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me how you came to that page, please? SageRad (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The same way I get to any page; one link follows another. Everything is connected. Scr★pIron^IV 18:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem unwilling to speak honestly about how you got there. It really feels like the chances of you coming to this page unless you looked into my user contribs would be nearly zero. Circumstantially, it appears to be very likely that you found a page i had edited today and went at it. I hope you understand why it would feel this way. SageRad (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the AN/I notification. That's a pretty simple rule; editors are expected to learn them. This discussion is now over. Leave, and do not return to my talk page again. Consider it an official banishment; I have that right, and I am exercising it. Scr★pIron^IV 19:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blue Lantern Corps (redux)

Why do you revert the Blue Lantern Article to incorrect and provably false narrative? I know for a fact the original artist and comic strip and was obviously using the referenced sixties art as template. I only asked for the original drawing be referenced correctly and not falsely to the Daniel Hatem and not the DC comic artist as they did NOT draw or name this character. Stop trying to be the last narration and strive to be the correct narrator. Your obsession with the last word is stopping you from noting the truth to the factual narrative that is being set here. I don't believe the narrative now as I know it is false and have proven it many times to you and these editors. Stop wasting my time and leave it correct and leave it alone when it is factual as I have posted before and again. There is a word for people who do this and I will refrain from using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.159.141.25 (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We have already discussed this. Provide sources to support your position. Also, discuss it on the article's talk page, not on mine. Scr★pIron^IV 19:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Quezon City Science High School

Hello! I am making an edit to the page as it needs updating for teachers, students (current and prospective) and other researchers of the institution for our Action Research. This is not an act of vandalizing or promoting the page. Please uphold my revision. Thank you.

P.S. The references to the information I added will be uploaded in 24 hours. I am just consolidating my reference list. Thank you. 49.144.245.144 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I have also edited this page, and have removed a number of items which would require sources to add back in. Please read the guidelines in my edit summaries, and read WP:CHALLENGE. items removed because they are unsourced will require sources to be restored. Scr★pIron^IV 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:MINREF

Many tags are expressions of an editor's POV of how WP should be, not universal or binding on the editors or articles.

Please review the WP policies before reverting good faith edits. Only four conditions require the inclusion of inlne references. See WP:MINREF Excessive posting of tags is disruptive to the WP process and denegrates the credibility of the project. I only remove tags which are stale and defacto expired as nobody has chosen to act upon them for over a year or more. Tags are meant to be infomative to other editors but not permanent features of our articles.

It also appears that you may be following my edits from article to article which is prohibited under the WP:HOUND section of the Harassment guidelines. I'll assume good faith, but further edits in reversion of my work at WP will be reported on the Admin Noticeboard. Thank you for your understanding. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to report me; your edits are problematic, and need some oversight. You may have been here for years, but apparently you haven't learned much. Scr★pIron^IV 22:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've asked an Admin to look at this situation, as posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I have been here for many years and have in the past been heavilly involved in designing some of the core policies. We may have some differences of opinion and I can respect that but please follow policy, including civility. Best regards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ALL HAIL THE DESIGNER OF FLAWED POLICIES! Shall I kiss your feet now, or later? Your outdated interpretations don't work in the new world. Civil is as civil does; accusing someone of hounding when they have corrected two (now three) of your incorrect edits is, in itself, uncivil.

Oh, and perhaps you need to spend some time and brush up on your image copyright work. Now aren't you just... special. Scr★pIron^IV 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could comment here. Counsel2 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I not remember who you are, your claim of support from me is questionable at best. Perhaps we agreed once on some article somewhere, but I don't remember it. I also don't play with puppets. Scr★pIron^IV 14:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Hello ScrapIronIV. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 21:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ayyo

Umm porcupine is possibly pronounced blue. You can't say no because... You have no facts. You may say it's pronounced por-q-pine or however you may pronounce it due to you accent. I'm not saying I'm undeniably right. For many years it has been said to be por-q-pine. But who says that's even right. Sir or ma'am. Thank you. Thank you for your changes made to my changes made. Thank you for believing I am wrong when I may or may not be. Thank you for believing you are right. You were right.... Thank you .. ~Washed World~ Have a great day/afternoon/evening/night . Washed World (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

About The Same

I can't figure out what is the difference between what you do and what I have done: "All you need to do is provide a citation when you make the change. You have plenty of time, and thank you for talking about it." Did you read muy comments? Did you read the user's comments back? Would appreciate an explanation to your comments on my reverts. Historiador (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? I say I am done with it, and not to ping me anymore, so you bring it to my page? Really, the fact that you keep on and on about it does nothing for you. Let it go, and apologize for the mistake. Don't revert without reading sources. If I make a mistake, I admit it and move on. Do the same. Scr★pIron^IV 21:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

HMMWV numbers

Hello ScrapIronIV,

Note you've just reverted my HMMWV number edit. I'm going to revert it back to the figure I used (with an enhancement) as the figure I use is correct. I'm quite new to Wiki but have quickly learned that Talk is good, so FYI my update was sourced from the latest HMMWV update to the Jane's entry online, probably a better source than the original which to me looks like an overall production total. Give me a few minutes to action the change back, but to further support my figures I'm going to add a further link, and one to an AM General press release of 8th Sept which included the following words: “We are pleased to continue to support the active and future use of the more than 160,000 HMMWV’s currently in service as part of U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Reserves and National Guard fleets,” said Chris Vanslager, AM General Vice President, Programs and Business Development. http://www.amgeneral.com/corporate/news/amg-secures-six-year-contact-to-provide-army-with-m997a3-hmmwv-configured-ambulances I recall from a conversation I had a few months back with the JLTV team that the Army actually had somewhere between 100,000 and 110,000 HMMWVs, and that ties in with JLTV replacing around 50% of the fleet with current numbers touted. For now I can't actually track down the 100,000 figure anywhere citeableUndateableOne (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC).

All you need to do is provide a citation when you make the change. You have plenty of time, and thank you for talking about it. Scr★pIron^IV 14:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandal at 72.29.33.232 etc

Following our conversation at User talk:72.29.33.232, I have done some more searching, and found dozens more IP addresses used by the vandal, some of them in IP ranges other than the ones mentioned on that talk page. I don't like blocking an IP range without first checking all recent contributions from the range, to make sure that there won't be excessive collateral damage on innocent editors, but unfortunately the Wikimedia labs tool for checking range contributions is not working just now. I have searched for talk page messages to IP talk pages in the range, and all messages posted this year that I saw are for this vandal, but of course that is far from 100% reliable, as there may be constructive editors who have not received any messages. Nevertheless, if there were many editors in the range there would almost certainly be at least a few messages to them. For now, I have compromised by placing 3-day blocks on four new ranges, and also on an extended version of one of the existing blocked ranges. I hope that before the 3 days are up I will be able to check the range contributions, and decide whether longer blocks will be suitable.

Please do feel completely welcome to contact me on my talk page if you see more from the same vandal. (If you do so, unless it's within a few days, I suggest linking to this message. Quite often in a situation like this an editor contacts me after several months, assuming I will know what he or she is referring to, but by then I have made thousands more edits, and don't remember the particular case in question.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• In case it is of any interest to you, the new ranges I have blocked are 38.66.208.0/20 72.29.39.0/25 72.29.32.0/24 and 74.127.86.0/23, and I have also blocked 207.171.196.0/23, which is an extension of 207.171.197.0/24. I don't know whether you know how IP ranges work, but in case you don't, that means I have blocked all IP addresses in the ranges 38.66.208.0-38.66.223.255, 72.29.39.0-72.29.39.127, 72.29.32.0-72.29.32.255, 74.127.86.0-74.127.87.255 & 207.171.196.0-207.171.197.255. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking into this, and doing so much work on it. That should ease the maintenance load quite a bit! Hopefully they will give up, but they have been quite tenacious :-) Scr★pIron^IV 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Update: The range contributions tool is working again, and I have checked all edits this year from the new ranges I found. Altogether there were 961 edits, almost all of which were on this vandal's usual topics, and I looked carefully at each of the few edits that weren't. Some of those edits were still vandalism, even if not by this person. That left a total of 9 edits which seemed to be good-faith edits by other people. That means that range blocks are likely to produce a collateral damage rate of less than 1%. Obviously, any collateral damage is undesirable, but I think that level can be accepted as the necessary cost of stopping a persistent vandal, so I shall go ahead and increase the length of the range blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Better source

Please specify why CNN is a good source and RT is a bad one, thanks. Lenore (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. State run media - when the state is engaged in conflict - is certainly not enough on its own. Find more, and better. Scr★pIron^IV 22:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please specify what the word "exceptional" means and why my informations are exceptional and the previous one are not, thanks. Lenore (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

MMh, I see you can't answer my question. Maybe beacuse there AREN'T answers to give? This arrogant and highly politicized way to manage pages and revert contributions that are not in line with the wikipedia editorial committee is a weel-known behaviour. Lenore (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

{{tps}} See exceptional claims:) But really, see WP:RS to understand the significance of a source being independent of the subject. DMacks (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Red but I continue to not understand why what CNN says should stay and what RT says about the same matter should not. Lenore (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Changes reverted

Hello, You reverted the changes made by me on Accenture's page.It does not matter whether who updates the page as the one who has correct information can do it .But could you please tell me from where have you taken that figure(revenue) as the citation which I provided had clearly mentioned statistics and I updated it that only.I am unable to find these figures provided by you anywhere.so please either provide a correct source or kindly revert back the changes.Please respond to it soon. Dpshmrt (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Just provide a source (not a WP:PRIMARY one) for the updated figures. Thank you for discussing it. Scr★pIron^IV 14:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

But the citation provided by you is similar to the one which I provided and it also contains the same figure for revenue which is $31 billion for FY 2015 instead of the one you have written i.e. $32.914 billion.So please revert the changes back. By Dpshmrt

Front National

Hello, I just wanted to raise a concern following this, and this. I can see you had a reversion exchange with this user on the same issue, right now it's locked in a dubious state, for a GA, this is not the best really. I've highlighted this on the protecting admin's page, but you may, or may not have a view on this. best. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Caliber

1 Caliber = .01 Inches ".50 caliber" would be a .005 inch barrel which is incorrect. Gunsmith101 (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right, of course - and the whole world is wrong. Congratulations! In the meantime, changing .50 caliber to 50 caliber will be reverted on sight, as will any other similar change. And not just by me; it is not a threat of any sort. It is just how it will be. Too many sources refer to rifle and pistol calibers in this way. Scr★pIron^IV 14:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How did you

remove that massive amount of vandalism (the "Tangled" editor) so quickly? Thx, Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a "CTRL+A" to select all of the text while I was in the edit box, and a tap of the delete button. Thanks for restoring the warnings; that massive amount of text was freezing this poor little notebook. Scr★pIron^IV 21:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The image-vandalism was freezing laptops too... Thx for the reminder about CTRL+A, I couldn't figure out how to revert it all. Shearonink (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why restoring the Hitchhiker's guide section in Meaning of Life?

Hello,

Regarding your revert on Meaning of Life, why did you restore that section? Sure it is sourced but it is not relevant to the article because "What is the meaning of life?" or any such variation do not exist in Adams's works.

To quote the original radio-play directly:

LUNKWILL: O Deep Thought Computer, the task we have designed you to perform is this: We want you to tell us.... The Answer. 
DEEP THOUGHT: "The Answer"? The answer to what? 
FOOK: Life! 
LUNKWILL: The Universe. 
FOOK: Everything! 
DEEP THOUGHT: Tricky...
FOOK: But can you do it? 
DEEP THOUGHT: Yes... I can do it. 
FOOK: You can! 
LUNKWILL: There, there, there is an answer? A simple answer? 
DEEP THOUGHT: Yes. Life, the Universe, and Everything... There is an answer. But I’ll have to think about it.  

...and after thinking about it:

DEEP THOUGHT: Alright. The answer to everything...
LOONQUAWL: Yes? 
DEEP THOUGHT: Life, the Universe, and Everything...
PHOUCHG: Yes? 
DEEP THOUGHT: Is...
LOONQUAWL: Yes? 
DEEP THOUGHT: Is...
PHOUCHG: Yes? 
LOONQUAWL: Yes? 
DEEP THOUGHT: Forty-two.
LOONQUAWL: We’re going to get lynched you know that. 
DEEP THOUGHT: It was a tough assignment. 
PHOUCHG: Forty-two?!
LOONQUAWL: Forty-two?!
DEEP THOUGHT: I think the problem such as it was, was too broadly based. You never actually stated what the question was. 
PHOUCHG: B- b- but it was the Ultimate question, the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. 
DEEP THOUGHT: Exactly. Now that you know that the answer to the Ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is forty-two, all you need to do now is find out what the Ultimate Question is. 
LOONQUAWL: Er...
PHOUCHG: Er...
LOONQUAWL: Alright. Can you please tell us the Question. 
PHOUCHG: Alright. 
DEEP THOUGHT: The Ultimate Question? 
LOONQUAWL: Yes. 
DEEP THOUGHT: Of Life... the Universe...
PHOUCHG: ...and Everything. 
DEEP THOUGHT: ...and Everything? 
LOONQUAWL: Yes. 
DEEP THOUGHT: Tricky...
LOONQUAWL: But can you do it? 
DEEP THOUGHT: [Pause] No. 

In short the question remains unknown and is only ever referred to as "The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything" without ever stating what that question is or - as happens on Earth after the Golgafrinchems mess up the program - "What is six by nine?", or when the mice make one up on their own.

Hence the statement that "What is the meaning of life?" is The Ultimate Question is completely false and - in my experience - only ever said by people that never actually partook of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy in any of its forms.

J-Star (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Restored sourced content, this wall of text is just WP:SYNTH and WP:OR Scr★pIron^IV 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if you're just trolling me or what. None of the sources say that "The Ultimate Question" - to which is the answer is "42" - is any way related to "the meaning of life". Removing the section again and if you want to add it again, then you show that the section deserves being there. J-Star (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The content is sourced, that is all that is required. Your personal opinion does not override the sources. Scr★pIron^IV 14:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

List of active Russian military aircraft

Hey man!

I was just checking out the wikipedia article on reliable sources.

In it it is stated that: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.

Some of the sources on this page are from ``BMPD`` blog on livejournal.com .At least in my opinion, he looks like a professional in the field of Russian Aerospace Forces equipment, covering the latest news about it.

What do you think?Would like to hear about your opinion!

All the best, RussianBear158 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at that source a number of times, and can not see any evidence of editorial oversight for the site. While the individual may be a professional in the field, it is still a personal blog and not a news source. I do not see that as passing WP:RS. Scr★pIron^IV 13:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

adding references

Hi, I can add references to the article on link grammar but I cannot actually add them if you hit the revert button faster than I can add the references! Can you give me a few hours to do this, please? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add an "under construction" template if you need that kind of time. It will help avoid such issues. Scr★pIron^IV 20:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Zombies, Run

You chose to immediately put in your preferred revision on the basis of a cast list being 'cruft' instead of opening a discussion, so please don't lecture me about not following bold revert and discuss. I have found a cast listing on the official website, and I am using it to cite the cast list. Thank you for your understanding. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Describing my edit as unsourced when I was using the official website is disingenuous. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Prepare to be edited, per WP:RS, WP:LISTCRUFT, and for promotional content. I will not do it today, so you can read over a few policies beforehand. I know you think you WP:OWN the article, but it can't stay in its current form. So, get rid of the WP:PRIMARY stuff, and the blogs, the press releases, the sales sites you are using as sources, and try to find some real sources. You have about a day or so. Scr★pIron^IV 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finally engaging with me in conversation, rather than an edit war or by automated templates. The voice acting of the series has been praised in several reviews of the game, and so it is not listcruft for the voice actors to be included in the article. Please assume good faith - I do not own the Zombies, Run article, but I do not agree with you removing valid information based on your idea of what 'cruft' is. There is very little in-universe information presented with the cast list, and it is equivalent to the cast list of a TV series or a film. Why is it unacceptable to use their own cast list to cite a cast list in Wikipedia? Thanks for correcting the spelling of Andrea Phillips, by the way. I have emailed the SF encyclopedia, because it was easy to do. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, ScrapIron, "Prepare to be edited" is a non-optimal word choice. It can be - and was - perceived as hostile and aggressive, which I'm sure was not your intention. DS (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my rather glib style is often interpreted as aggressive. I can't control how others perceive my words; they only mean what they mean. Scr★pIron^IV 13:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hellos! This ended up going to WT:VG but really should be happening at Talk:Zombies, Run!. I've removed the cast lists and put the primary two writing credits in the infobox. The guest writers are not appropriate for the infobox. If their contributions are important at all, they should be worked into the development section. Just my 2 cents. :) I'll watch the article for a bit as well. -- ferret (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the changes to the article which were implemented overnight pretty much resolve any issues I had with the article. A truly productive outcome of good work in the last day! Scr★pIron^IV 15:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And it all happened because people were willing to treat me like a person, taking the time to explain things to me instead of finding first one then another rule to revert me with, filling my page up with automatic warnings, giving ultimatums and bandying around glib accusations. If you know that your glib style is often interpreted as aggressive, then why not modify it, particularly for someone you don't know? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Also - it was misleading to tell me to 'get rid of the primary stuff' - primary sources are perfectly fine. Please be more mindful in the future. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is bandying about glib accusations about ultimatums, and failing to assume good faith? Things were misleading in your eyes because you failed to read the link I shared; that explains what others had to explain to you - because you chose not to learn for yourself. Go forth, and sin no more. Find a mentor, or something - or actually read and learn policies and procedures. Oh, and I would recommend that you read WP:RS - and this time, I do mean "read it" (although I have said it before) because WP:FRINGE theories on fictional relationships give undue weight to nonsense. Scr★pIron^IV 19:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How is "Prepare to be edited, per WP:RS, WP:LISTCRUFT, and for promotional content." not an ultimatum? I read the links - they were too vague, and they were able to provide other links that were clearer. I have read policies, and I have read procedures. Primary sources are acceptable, and implying that they weren't was misleading. There was never any reason for you to be so rude to me, or to try and justify your rudeness by applauding the changes on the article. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation is your own problem. I have not been rude to you, and telling a group of editors that a job was well done is not some sort of justification for that. Don't blame me if you failed to understand policy. If you think they are too vague, rewrite them. SOME primary sources are OK, but not all. Learn to distinguish the difference. Clearly you have some talent as an editor, but you really need to get the chip off your shoulder. An edit is not a personal attack, and giving you the chance to modify an article per policy beforehand was an opportunity, not an ultimatum. Scr★pIron^IV 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You said "So, get rid of the WP:PRIMARY stuff, and the blogs, the press releases, the sales sites you are using as sources, and try to find some real sources." Giving misleading information that primary sources are not "real sources" does not help me understand, particularly when WP:PRIMARY does not forbid primary sources. I would appreciate an apology for the accusation that "I know you think you WP:OWN the article". Misleading information and accusations like these aren't necessary, and they don't help people work together. I have raised the ZR article from something deletion-worthy to something relatively useful - it tells a bit about the development, reception and gameplay of ZR. That makes me a primary contributor, not an "owner". Accusing someone of owning an article is often a cheap way to stifle discussion on an article's contents. (As you can see discussed in WP:BULLY.) When the only human conversation that I'd had from you was "prepare to be edited" and you had stated that primary sources were not "real sources"... I was wondering if you were planning to gut the article based on a bad interpretation of what RS means. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you still going on about this? Stop complaining; the article was improved. Get over it. In fact, there are new additions that need to be reverted based upon the discussions you had with others. Do something useful, and go take care of it. Scr★pIron^IV 21:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Scrap. At this point, all the IP is doing is badgering, which is itself a form of bullying. Time to Drop the Stick and move on. - BilCat (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You think it's ok to give me misleading information and make accusations and continue to talk to me in a glib and condescending manner. It's very disheartening and it makes me less likely to want to edit Wikipedia in the future. I would appreciate an apology as a sign of good faith, but that probably wouldn't be compatible with your "rather glib style". --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your failure to comprehend does not make it misleading; your "misfollowing" is the proximal cause of this wall of whining on my talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 21:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You said "So, get rid of the WP:PRIMARY stuff, and the blogs, the press releases, the sales sites you are using as sources, and try to find some real sources." Stating that primary sources are not real sources is misleading, although you may not have intended it to be so. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my stars and garters! Are you STILL going on about this??? What do you need, the WP:LASTWORD or some such nonsense? You and @Ferret: did a fine job of fixing it up. I said that before. My word, get over yourself. Scr★pIron^IV 21:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've told you before - I would appreciate an apology. If your dedication to your style precludes you from offering that as a sign of good faith, then perhaps you should consider getting over yourself. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And I would appreciate a nice slice of home made apple pie, with some ice cream. I guess we will both be disappointed. You know what I would like for a sign of good faith? SILENCE. That'd be cool. It was nice to meet you, now go away. Scr★pIron^IV 21:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet, you are still posting to my talk page. Scr★pIron^IV 21:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Response

I don't know why you keep reversing my edits. You clearly don't pay attention to new things coming up on the news and you insist on keeping everything the same way even though it outdated and obvious that it needs to be replaced. So back off of my edits. You don't know what I can do to you. Brainiac15 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? I don't know what you can do to me? Wow. In the meantime, all you need to do is provide sources to your changes. Scr★pIron^IV 22:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Brainiac15: Be civil in your interactions with other editors, and don't make vague "threats" from your computer chair - it only takes away from your credibility -- samtar ^whisper 22:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why ?

Why you remove Mohammed Khaïr Eddine from Berbers . He is a famous Moroccan Berber literary figure --AyOuBoXe (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no indication of his being a Berber on his page. Scr★pIron^IV 18:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

He is Born in Tafraout And there is a source http://en.qantara.de/content/mohammed-khair-eddine-an-intimate-look-at-berber-culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyOuBoXe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you edit his article, using that as a cited reference. Assuming that being born in Tafraout would make one a Berber... Plenty of people are born in places that they do not consider their own cultural identity. Make good edits, with good sources, for the inclusion. 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm new in Wikipedia so thank you for giving me some advices. I just want to tell you that the city of Tafraout there are only Amazigh people or (berber people). AyOuBoXe (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Just remember that in the Wikipedia community, some changes are reverted or edited - but that does not mean anything personal. It just means that there is something wrong that needs to be fixed, or that the information (or its source) is not in keeping with standards. My recommendation would be to use the article's talk page, or the Tea House, to get suggestions on how to learn Wikipedia processes. Scr★pIron^IV 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you very much and forgive me for wasting your time.AyOuBoXe (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not a waste of my time at all, I hope I did not give that impression. I will admit I am not a good mentor, and will not be editing much over the next couple of weeks, anyway. I am just trying to give you more and better options. Cheers! Scr★pIron^IV 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting a key and well-referenced person from the history of firewalking. The references are valid and have been verified by Wiki.

I am Steve Consalvez and I am an expert in this subject. I have studied its history and I was involved in firewalking in the United Kingdom BEFORE Anthony Robbins. I approached RRI from 1990 to bring him to the UK and have worked for Tony Robbins, been trained by Tony Robbins, and studied with ALL of the current accrediting bodies on earth.

Firewalking would have the same interest as other esoterically interesting subjects such as spontaneous human combustion, fire eating or snake charming if it had not been for Tolly Burkan and the people who have trained with him.

People of significance, like Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey and many other renowned people have firewalked in the early years with Tolly Burkan and latterly with Tony Robbins, who has, by his own hand, thanked Tolly Burkan for training him.

Tony is renowned for his extensive research into human behaviour and his creation of a system for helping people to reach their potential. Part of that, is the fact that he simultaneously learned a firewalk seminar as a way of bundling together the knowledge he derived from his NLP teachers to become famous. This is historical fact, and to get confirmation of that, you can ask John Grinder and Tony Robbins personally, both of whom I have met.

I have read more than 100 articles and texts on firewalking and most of them mention Tolly Burkan, Peggy Dylan, or Tony Robbins, but if you dig deeper, you will find articles that I have in my possession on people Like Kuda Bux, who was performing firewalks from 1930’s onwards, but I only know of one person alive today who actually met Kuda Bux, and that is Tolly Burkan.

I have been firewalking for 23 years, have walked on over 700 firewalks, have trained or co-trained over 200 firewalking instructors from over 30 countries. Frankly, anyone who cannot accept that Tolly Burkan should be mentioned thus is vandalising history which is why I took this issue up with Wikipedia legal.

It appears to me, to be incredibly narcissistic to believe that this omission is somehow serving people who might want to know just how this ancient practice has historically became the phenomenon that Tony has developed it into.

Just about every person on the planet has learned most of his education from other people. Why cannot you leave historical fact and reference in the text of this organisation that claims to be an online encyclopaedia? If we do not preserve the real history, then what is left is not the whole truth.

I only write the truth, but I cannot argue against you if you insist that you disagree with it being in. I would just suggest that it’s better with the whole truth in there rather than what your proposing.

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Consalvez (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This topic has been covered extensively this year. My edits are in line with the existing consensus on the subject. Take it to the ARTICLE talkpage. I will entertain no further discussion here - but I WILL be reverting to the existing consensus. Oh, and your continued edit-warring through the use of IP's will be reported if you continue. Scr★pIron^IV 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And the use of another sockpuppet account has been noted. Tayste (edits) 00:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Response

I don't give a shit Brainiac15 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, or you would provide sources. Scr★pIron^IV 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Response

Okay you win. I have given up on editing but can you do this one thing for me? Try to stay more up to date on stuff. Thanks and I'm sorry for being a jerk Brainiac15 (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody wants you to give up on editing; the quality of what you seem to want to add to articles is quite valuable. All anyone is asking is that you provide citations and sources when you add or change material. An extra step or two, that's all.Pretty much, it's about verifiability and not personal. The apology is accepted, and I will offer my own. I would prefer if you stick around, and continue to contribute. Scr★pIron^IV 14:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It's me again. Can you do this favor for me? I was looking at the List of U.S. chemical weapons topics and I looked at the Deseret Chemical Depot and it said that it closed in 2013. There is an article on the Internet that I found but I can't do it because I'm still training on sources so can you move it to the closed part of the list and use the article as a source? Thanks and you don't need to apologize. I take full responsibility for my actions. Brainiac15 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Done - Hope you are having a haapy holiday season Scr★pIron^IV 14:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you too and sorry for saying this but can you also do the same for Anniston Army Depot at Anniston Chemical Activity because it also closed in 2013 and Umatilla Chemical Depot because it also closed in 2014.. Brainiac15 (talk 17:45, 28 December 2015. (UTC)

List of cities in the European Union by Muslim population

Hello ScrapIronIV

I deleted the city "Sarajevo" from the "List of cities in the European Union by Muslim population" and you added the city "Sarajevo" (Bosnia and Herzegovina) to the list again. Do you think the state "Bosnia and Herzegovina" is a member of the European Union???

In addition, I deleted the decaying data and you added these data again. These data are not up to date.

Best regards

It is not "decaying data" - it is a progression of the increase in population. The original data is still valid for the time frame it specifies. Scr★pIron^IV 20:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

and you still believe that the state "Bosnia and Herzegovina" is a member of the European Union???

I believe its inclusion was warranted by its close association; however I would reconsider. Scr★pIron^IV 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello ScrapIronIV

Have you investigated if the state "Bosnia and Herzegovina" is a member of the European Union or not?

The name of the article is ”List of cities in the European Union by Muslim population”. So if “Bosnia and Herzegovina" is not a member state of the European Union then the city “Sarajevo” should not listed on the table.

Best regards

Stooshe

Hello ScrapIronIV, thank you for reviewing my edit on Stooshe but, I can 100% assure you that it it not promotion material, it is 150% true that they split-up with their record label and have a new single (Lock Down) coming out really soon. So please can you revert it back to before please(!!!!), or do it yourself with the correct information. Thank you. - Jozza-7

It was removed per policy as a promotional sales tool, and is completely unsourced. Also per WP:CRYSTAL - Provide a source! Scr★pIron^IV 21:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to argue with you because it really is. Look and you'll find out yourself!!!! I noticed that you even changed information that their managers (FVP) even changed on the page. You are the person in the wrong here!- Jozza-7

I am sure that there is a talk page stalker or two here who would be more than happy to take a peek at your addition, and add counsel. For me, I have attempted to explain - but if you won't hear me, then maybe you would hear another voice. Scr★pIron^IV 21:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I would happily accept that the page is restored to before with the extra information. The reason because it is little information and little sources (even though it's from Stooshe themselves and MTV UK) is that the song hasn't been released yet, so no reception info or charts etc. to add. Thank you. - Jozza-7

I really don't mean to be rude here but, you are reeally starting to pee me off. THE SOURCES ON THE CONTENT THAT I ADDED TO Stooshe COME FROM STOOSHE THEMSELVES (VEERRY RELIABLE) AND MTV UK (ALSO VERY RELIABLE!!) PLEASE STOP! - Jozza-7

Please read WP:RS - Facebook, YouTube, etc. Do not meet the standard for this material. Scr★pIron^IV 20:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lancaster County

Information icon Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIronIV 20:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The citation has been re-referenced to include today's date (the swearing-in of the new row office officials). Later Tab1975

The citation you updated does not include any information to support the changes you have made. A source is required. Scr★pIron^IV 13:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hat tip: even if it was to kill my entry....

Wow...someone actually saw and flagged my new entry (Icepeople) almost immediately after I entered it. No idea who you are, where you are or what you do in real life, but that's rather impressive. As you'll see on the talk page, I'm not going to put up a huge fight (a Wiki listing isn't exactly a life goal), but I posted the entry due to the accedidation thing. If you have any suggestions that would overcome whatever questions you have, obviously I'm open to them.

Sorry for any typos. Writing on an iPad at 1:30 a.m. means a few tend to sneak in...

In the condition I found it, it was purely promotional, and written by an editor with an apparent WP:COI. A second opinion by an admin concurred, and they deleted it. Generally, noteworthy topics are covered by uninvolved editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a business directory or an advertising site. Scr★pIron^IV 13:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quezon City Science HS

Sir why did you remove the informations? Thegreenparadox (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is unsourced, and excessive. The article was trimmed to be more in keeping with an encyclopedia entry. Such information should go on the school's website. Scr★pIron^IV 13:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

greenparadox

Hey sir im sorry I deleted the discussion im new here and btw im not the one who anonymously editted the qcshs page it's one of my teacher. I hope that you will help me on how to edit and revise pages in this site thank you :) Thegreenparadox (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shmuly Yanklowitz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are removing Open Orthodox when he is clearly OO. YCT is the OO school. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear, and so do you Sir Joseph! Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sir Joseph: Nonsense; you need to find a specific source to support the statement. Denominations are not added to a WP:BLP without a source. Scr★pIron^IV 19:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, someone doesn't go to a rabbinical school and get ordination from that school if they're not part of that denomination. If you're not aware of how it works in Judaism, then I'll let you know, that's how it works. A reform rabbi won't go, and won't be let in to an Orthodox school and especially with Open Orthodox since it's a breakway denomination, if you're going to YCT, then you're Open Orthodox, you're not MO. Do you have a source that he's MO? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That school's article does not claim it is an Open Orthodox institution. What you have changed is a WP:BLPVIO without a source Scr★pIron^IV 19:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

YCT is the OO school. That just shows that you are unaware of the topic. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As are our readers. That is why we use SOURCES to verify things - not our own personal knowledge. Get it, now? Scr★pIron^IV 19:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is in the lead of the article "

"At a May 2014 gala, one member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, called Open Orthodoxy heretical." the sentence before showed that YCT pulled their application from the RCA (the MO) when it would have been denied. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Further down: "Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, like all Open Orthodox rabbinical schools (Yeshivat Maharat notwithstanding), accepts only male candidates for ordination. " Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Further down it states "...went even further, declaring Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Yeshivat Maharat, Open Orthodoxy, and other affiliated entities..." AGAIN, it states an affiliation, but not that it IS PART THEREOF. There is no explicit statement that this Rabbi is OO, NOR is there an explicit statement that the school is. Clarity is required when dealing with WP:BLP issues. Some would be offended to be called OO, others would be offended to be called Orthodox. SOURCES, SOURCES, SOURCES! We add controversial statements AS SOURCED by the statements of reliables sources, not based upn what we personally know to be true. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they certainly aren't Modern Orthodox since they aren't part of the Rabbinical Council of America and can't join the RCA since YCT graduates are ineligible to join. You should also look at the Avi Weiss article for clarification. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm OK with it the way it is now, since we don't need the denomination, and once we get clarification, we can add it in. On the project page we are figuring out how to categorize the rabbis anyway so that is a chore anyway. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  My issue - and why this nonsense started (and yes, thank you for being the bigger man here) - is that I have seen this individual self-identify as simply "Orthodox."[27] My understanding of Judaism is limited, but I know - as in all faiths - it is controversial when dealing with denominations. I do see and understand your point, and yes, we should have started a dialogue sooner in the edit process. It's one of the downsides of Wikipedia... and I'm not the best communicator. It's why I (usually) stay away from controversial topics. I went looking for a source that openly claims him to be Open Orthodox, and have simply failed to find it. I think it is better to include that information, and I am also certain that you are right. it's just that pesky BLP sourcing thing that is getting in the way... So, I apologise for being brusque, and hope to do better in future. Scr★pIron^IV 19:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and there is an issue within Judaism that there is no membership requirement, so he can say he's Orthodox, but there's no Pope to give him the nod or boot him out. It is after all, where he got his ordination from, (and yes, the YCT article needs work) and how he is currently practicing. Keep in mind that Open Orthodoxy is a new movement, under 10 years or so and while when it just started it may have been claiming to be part of the MO camp, it is now starting to be more open in its more liberal ways so it might be easier to see the denominational splits. Indeed, the pronouncements and edicts from the groups have only recently gotten more vocal. But I do think that if someone has ordination from X, it is fair to say he's X and it should not be a violation of SYNTH. I also think it will most likely be changed soon anyway since claiming him solely as Orthodox casts aspersions on Orthodoxy since he's claiming to be Orthodox, and the cycle will begin again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. But consider, for a moment, an analogy to the non-Judaic mindset: Even if one attends seminary at a well known Presbyterian University, it does not mean that they are Presbyterian; they could as easily choose to be of any of the protestant denominations, or could choose to go on to some of the more controversial denominations that "true believers" might not consider "Christian" at all. Religion can be a real mess, and it's why I end up being a stickler for supporting sources. From my perspective - and it could be wrong: When I read "Open Orthodox" I saw a specific denomination, when I read "Modern Orthodox" I saw a broader movement. But it is not why I restored it to that; I restored it to the status quo for long-standing content. I really do want to see the article improved, and would prefer for it to be more specific. Scr★pIron^IV 20:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but just to clarify, YCT is not a university per se, those going, are going just to get ordination to become rabbis. It's not like Jewish students going to Touro college which is a Jewish college but anyone can go and it's just a convenient college for Jewish students for scheduling, etc. Modern Orthodoxy is oftentimes used as a catchall for people who want to be part of Orthodoxy, so it has people from the right to the extreme left. I'm not sure if OO is a denomination or a movement. That's the big issue right now for OO and MO, is OO part of normative Orthodoxy or is it similar to Conservative, as it is becoming clearer, according to some? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If I understand, then it is even more complex than I originally thought. If he clearly self identified with the movement, it would be easier. The only source I found was a newsletter for the kosher food industry that clearly labels him OO. But even self identifying has its issues, as one my believe that their belief system falls within a certain ideology or doctrine, but are actually preaching outside it. Such a mess. Certainly there are many who have been charged with heresy or apostasy over the years that did not think they were breaking the rules... Scr★pIron^IV 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I found a FB post where he asks, "What should OO/MO do aboutX?" But that obviously won't work. Only time will bring an unambiguous statement. They're going to need to make one, one day, either OO, or O. But in this case it is a bit easier since the RCA disavowed them which they never do. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Lancaster County

I used the previous link that reference dated from 2013 to update all the information (I used the linked website to find all the information I updated). Why is the official Lancaster County, Pennsylvania website not sufficient to use as a reference. I know they don't present the information in a nice format like Wikipedia (but isn't that the point of Wikipedia). I had all the references redone. Please stop undoing my correct edits.

The supplied citation was to the Lancaster County home page. IF that website contains the correct information, then you must link to the specific page upon which the information actually exists. Otherwise, you have not provided a source. Scr★pIron^IV 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Marella

According to the sources, Marella retired on July 4. Maybe in a interview or facebook, he said he want's to wrestling again, but right now, he is retired. One year after, multiple sources say he is retired (http://www.primerahora.com/deportes/otros/nota/atletasvenezolanosseentrenanengimnasiodesantinomarella-1094126/ http://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=3689&gimmick=Santina+Marella). He didn't come back, so his retirement isn't spectulation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

True as that may be, it is too much information for a simple header. Perhaps you might want to make that a separate section. Scr★pIron^IV 13:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

118.101.61.104

Hi, ScrapIronIV. Just a heads up, users are allowed to remove talk page warnings per WP:BLANKING. You may want to add Template:OW in that case.– Gilliam (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I actually have been adding new warnings for new offenses, and have not restored any old ones - but I do appreciate the heads-up! Scr★pIron^IV 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Sorry for the misunderstanding!– Gilliam (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Thanks for all the work you do - I see your name come up often when on vandal patrol. Scr★pIron^IV 14:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowitz Page Edits

What was your logic behind the extensive edits to Shmuly Yanklowitz's page edits? Thank you.

The sources that have been provided to not meet Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Opinion pieces, letters to the editor, Temple Bulletins and newsletters are not sources for an encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 19:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was trying to remove material that I felt did not uphold Wikipedia's policies. An anonymous user repeatedly reverted the edits. I felt this user's edits were not constructive and were attacking the subject, rather than being neutral. Is there way to ensure that the page for Shmuly Yanklowitz is watched so that malicious edits are not so easily added?

It is now on several experienced editors' watchlists, but it might not hurt to go to WP:RFPP and ask for page protection. There is already a report on WP:ANI Scr★pIron^IV 19:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that that particular user has been banned for one week. I am wondering, because they harassed an editor, is there a policy that says the banning should be longer? Or is that standard? Thank you for your help.

It seems a reasonable length of time for someone who is probably unaware of Wikipedia's rules and standards. The blocking Admin is one whose judgement I trust. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Very nice. Thank you for the info.

Oklahoma Baptist University

Thanks for this. I thought I had removed the whole section. This user won't give up and I'm sure this will happen again. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 15:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it happens a lot around here. SPA accounts pushing an agenda. I've been trying harder to not let it get under my skin... even to letting myself be called all sorts of unsavory names. It gets difficult sometimes. At least in this case, he merely accuses me of being staff for the college. Better than the guy yesterday who called me a "lttle pissant cretin" for being unable to get into a "prestigious" college... Or being called a terrorist, or the "right hand of Zionist" - all too amusing, but gets tiresome. Scr★pIron^IV 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh good lord! I can imagine it's difficult, but at least some give you a good laugh! That's why I try to stay away from the major editing and spas. I don't need that and editing here would likely decrease for me. Lord knows I've gotten tired of some others on here and have almost decided to leave for good because of them. Hope the New Year is treating you well so far! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 15:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - it's why I stick mostly to obvious vandalism, much less contentious. And I rarely edit anything I have a real personal interest in, because then I get too involved. I am glad you have stuck around so far. Maybe a little dedicated vandalism patrol would be a nice break for you - it can be fun! :-D Scr★pIron^IV 15:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

NetFlix Pakistan

Hi, ITs not a promotional edit, kindly update it/ improve my edit but not revert remove it Here NETFLIX PAKISTAN , its supported with News websites two references then ehy you reverted it , kindly undo your reverts, Thanks ...Jogi 007 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Netflix has recently made a worldwide expansion. Adding a section for an individual country - including promotional language - is unwarranted. No other country has its own section in the article. Scr★pIron^IV 13:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Firefly

Thanks for the revert. I guess I accidentally reverted myself and didn't realize it. Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It happens to us all Happy editing! Scr★pIron^IV 19:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What?

What did I add to Wolfgang that you removed? Also, most of wikipedia is lacking citations, but the pages are still there...119.92.93.84 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The page on wolves did not mention Wolfgang, the Wolfgang you linked to Tansformers did not include any Wolfgang as a character. Each entry added should be directly connected to the term being disambiguated, and have a link to the subject. That IS a disambiguation page. If you wish to create a separate article about the name, feel free. Scr★pIron^IV 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I never linked anything to Transformers! And why would the page about Germanic Mythology have the name Wolfgang in it?119.92.93.84 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, this link says that your IP did. So, unless you are sharing a computer minute by minute with someone else who is editing the same article, then... Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, it is a disambiguation page, and your repeated addition and removal of the template is disruptive. Do not remove it again. Scr★pIron^IV 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Observium fork revert

I see you reverted my edit on the Observium fork (to LibreNMS), stating that per WP:RS a blog is not a reliable resource. Although I think the statement that there has been controversy is undeniably correct (many online sources can be found for this), I want to avoid slandering Observium and its authors and just represent the emergence of the fork in a neutral manner, which is a valid part of Observium's history. What do you think is the best way to do this? I suppose just mentioning the start of the fork without referring to the controversy should not need that blog source, for example. -- Mark Bergsma (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material will be challenged, and removed. As far as the LibreNMS information goes, that is part of the founding of LibreNMS. I don't know - or even much care - about the controversy itself, but I certainly have no intention of allowing LibreNMS to promote themselves on the Observium page, particularly given the years of vandalism that has been perpetrated on the Observium page by that organization. If something absolutely neutral and impeccably sourced is provided, then of course it could stay. Scr★pIron^IV 21:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and I have no stake in the argument either. But I assume you will also not object to those same policies being applied to the rest of the Observium article either:

• As mentioned on Talk:Observium, software forks are typically mentioned on the base software article as well, which can be verified using List_of_software_forks. Therefore it seems that your statement that the founding of the LibreNMS fork is (only?) relevant to LibreNMS is not sufficient for disallowing it here.
• The rest of the article appears to contain some bits of information that are either trivia or seem questionably sourced as well; for example the information about the Kickstarter campain is somewhat out of place/irrelevant, and uses Twitter as a source which is not inline with WP:RS. Strangely this appears to have been the subject of repeated edit wars in the past, and perhaps should be removed as the value of it is unclear.
• Vandalism appears to have been fueled by both sides of the argument, with some rather questionable material having been added in the past. The article should be kept absolutely neutral and well sourced, but we should also make sure that these policies aren't being used to prevent valid, relevant information being added that one side would rather not like to see.

-- Mark Bergsma (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Rey (star wars) in the light of ORES

In the light of ORES do you regard yourself a super-friendly and super-newcomer-embracing person? or more of an arrogant, brief WP dinosaur? --johayek (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of poorly written WP:OR is warranted, regardless of any imagined "light" (real, or imagined) provided by such an application. How I regard myself is my own business. But I do thank you for your extensive editing in your many years of service. Scr★pIron^IV 19:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)