Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Equazcion (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 20 April 2012 (→ANI issue: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.	22:30, 9 January 2025 UTC 14:30, January 9, 2025 PST
	This is Scottywong's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days
	Archives Archive 1 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Deletion of all Jessies

Hi! After the AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessie (character) it was decided to delete the article and not merge it into any disambiguation page for being non-notable. The user had then created a redirect page which was also speedily deleted. But i see that two more redirects under different spelling of this exist at Jessie Thekkekutu and Jessie Thekekuttu. Now what do i tag these redirects with? Hope we dont require AfD for this. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like they're both redirecting to Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa#Cast, which seems like a plausible redirect. I don't see any reason to delete them (although you may want to keep them on your watchlist to ensure someone doesn't try to re-create the deleted article there), but you can take them to WP:RFD if you think they should be deleted. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 14:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... i guess i should forget it. Not much harm, though useless in my opinion. Yeah.. they are on watchlist now. So problems in future will be spotted. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Alan M. Greenberg

Hello Scotty, Thanks for your analysis on Alan M. Greenberg. Could you remove the article entirely so I can create a stub that utilizes the recommendations of the editors? Thanks Fleurdelis4ever Fleurdelis4ever (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is already deleted entirely. While you're welcome to create a new article (i.e. one that is substantially different than the one that was deleted), please realize that the chances are low that the new article won't also be deleted. Take a moment to review WP:GNG and make sure Mr. Greenberg qualifies as notable before going through the effort to create another article that gets deleted. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I understand it's been deleted, but when you type in Alan Greenberg into Misplaced Pages's search engine, his name still comes up in red and states that a page with this title has previously been deleted. People who don't have much experience with Misplaced Pages may view that with a negative connotation. Is there a way to completely remove any reference to his name and the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurdelis4ever (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. There is not a way to hide the deletion log for an article. That information should only be displayed if someone searches for "Alan M. Greenberg", and then clicks on the redlink in: "You may create the page 'Alan M. Greenberg', but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.". Otherwise, if someone just searches the name, the deletion log won't be displayed. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

New tool - editor interaction analyzer

I've created another new tool today; something I've wanted to create for awhile and had time to work on today. It still needs some cleaning up, but at this point it appears to work pretty well. Essentially, it is a twist on the popular stalker tool. You put in two editors, and it will find the pages that both editors have edited. The twist is that it sorts the results based on the minimum time between edits by both users. In other words, if both editors made an edit to the same page within a short time, that page will show up towards the top of the table.

The general idea is that when two users edit a page within a short time, chances are high that they have interacted directly with one another on that page. Therefore, instead of just returning a list of common pages edited by both users, it returns a list of pages where two users most likely had some direct interaction with one another. It's subtly different, but I think it can be a powerful tool.

Try it out at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteract.html and let me know what you think. As always, bug reports and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thats very cool Snotty. I just loved it like your all other tools. You are doing awesome work... Yasht101 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Amazing tool! Great work! --SupernovaExplosion 02:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Experimental version for up to 10 editors: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteractmulti.html ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional supercouples

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This discussion is closed as "keep". However, I wonder if you have read the discussion because there is no closure rationale, as there have been long arguments about the list. Can you add your reasons for this? --George Ho (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I always read the full discussion before closing an AfD. I generally don't include a closure rationale when the result is obvious. In this case, I believe the result is obvious. The discussion was long, but that doesn't change the fact that the result was obvious. Is there something you have a specific question about? Or, do you disagree that the result was obvious? If so, why? ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Which arguments were strong and were weak? Why? How obvious? --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The delete arguments were weak, both numerically and policy-wise. Their main argument was that the content of the article currently has some original research, or that it has a high potential for OR to be introduced. Neither of these are policy-based reasons to delete the entire article. If there is OR or other unverifiable content in the article, then that content should be removed, not the whole article. No one argued convincingly that the entire content of the article was 100% OR, which is the only case where it would be appropriate to delete the entire article. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Even though I was "pending", how are mine? --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about problems with some of the content of the article, the list's inclusion criteria, and its formatting. These are not reasons to delete the entire article. These are things that should be discussed on the talk page of the article as ways to improve it. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 17:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WorldVentures Deletion

Scotty, I just wanted to follow up regarding your recent deletion of the WorldVentures article. I'm not the most experienced editor, and I'm afraid my voice wasn't heard amidst all the debate.

I cleaned up the article to ensure that all the links were working prior to its final deletion. So that should be a non-issue. Beyond that, I'm having a hard time seeing how inclusion in the Inc. 5000 (#994, in fact) and Founders nominated for Ernst & Young Entrepreneurs of the Year, along with solid coverage in Dallas publication D Magazine (This is the link to page 7, they're at the bottom), don't establish Notability.

And while it may be debatable as to whether Direct Selling News merits a Misplaced Pages article of its own, the fact remains that it is the primary industry publication covering the Direct Selling and Network Marketing industry. And so inclusion in the DSN Global 100 list of the 100 largest direct selling companies worldwide (#90 for 2011), an extensive article on the company (The New Freedom Fighters), and its philanthropic efforts (WorldVentures: Living and Giving) over the last two years, all add up to what seems to be a clear foundation for WP:CORP.

What am I missing here? Virgil06 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As the closing admin, it's not really my place to evaluate the sources. They were already evaluated by the editors who participated in the discussion. Several editors noted that they independently reviewed the sources and were not convinced that they established the notability of the company, along with specific reasons why. There's not much I can do, unless you can dredge up some new sources that were not discussed in the AfD, which unequivocally meet WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe consensus was reached. I have legitimate concerns that I believe were not heard. Several of the comments that were made don't make any sense to me. Torchiest claimed the mentions were either trivial or not independent. The Inc. 5000 is not a trivial mention (it was on newsstands worldwide and WorldVentures has a profile, albeit a small one, on the Inc. website), and it's definitely independent. Livitup said sources were unreliable, but I verified that the links worked. And I fail to see how just because a publication such as Direct Selling News exists to report on an industry, that significant coverage in that publication is not valid. Further, I don't believe my addition of the D Magazine source—during the discussion period—which not only validates the Ernst & Young nomination (also reliable), but also spends nine paragraphs discussing the notability of the company and its founders, was properly considered. I fully agree that this article is not much beyond a stub, but per WP:NCORP, while the coverage may not be considered substantial, the fact that there are multiple independent sources still establishes notability. Virgil06 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Inc. 5000 source is a single sentence, not significant coverage. Regardless of how many newsstands it was placed on, it's still a single sentence. That sentence could be used to source a statement in the article, but it can't be used to establish the notability of the company. The same is true for the Direct Selling News source. That source could be used as a reference for a fact in the article, but since it is not independent it does not count towards establishing notability. Also, saying that a source is unreliable is not synonymous with saying that a link is broken. Please read WP:RS for a description on what a reliable source is. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Biotechnology in Maryland Deletion

Hi Scotty, just wanted to touch base with you before I request to have my article go to deletion review. Here was the response you gave for deletion: The result was delete. There is clearly pretty strong consensus that the article should be deleted in its current state, and so it will be deleted. However, there is also a large minority who believe that an appropriate article on this subject could be written, and that this article currently has some good information. Therefore, I'm willing to userfy this article if anyone is interested. Please contact me on my talk page to request.

Although there was some consensus in the beginning of the discussion to delete, if you scroll down you'll notice the article was significantly improved to be more neutral by JoelWhy and myself during the course of discussion. Four users supported keeping the article in its improved state (don't think everyone had a chance to re-read), which doesn't seem like a consensus call for delete. All of the original nominator's concerns were addressed. A few of the positive comments you may have missed: I've started editing out the more clearly-promotional language. There really is some excellent content in this article, and I think it's easier to edit and fix than to recreate from scratch. (JoelWhy) | I opined that the article we saw initially at AFD needed to be blown up and started over, and that's pretty much what has happened to it (Squeamish Ossifrage) | The concerns I had above have been dealt with, with a fundamental rewrite. The article could still use fine tuning, but is overall a good article that covers the topic in a significantly more neutral manner. (Dennis Brown) Thanks for your time and I hope you'll reconsider your decision. Ferddog (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC) (formerly mdbizauthor)

Is it your opinion that you're done with improving the article, and that all concerns have been addressed? Or are there still issues that need to be fixed? If it's the latter, I would suggest having the article restored to your userspace (which I'm happy to do), work on it for a bit, and then move it back into article space (or optionally take the improved article to DRV if you want to play it safe, although generally it's ok to re-create a deleted article as long as it's not substantially similar to the one that was deleted). Note that this route is also suggested by Dennis Brown towards the bottom of the deletion discussion. There's no rush; get the article back into the mainspace only when you're sure it won't be nominated for deletion again. Let me know if you'd be agreeable to this. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI issue

Hi -- I have a problem I hope you might be able to help with. I opened an ANI discussion regarding a user, and that user has been filling the discussion with very long posts that largely have nothing to do with the complaint and I feel are repelling uninvolved editors from commenting (due to tl;dr). I was thinking maybe the comments could be collapsed with {{hat}}, but as the user who brought the complaint, I obviously can't do that myself. I'm wondering if you can have a look and offer advice on how to handle this. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User promoting a movement. Thanks. Equazcion 23:37, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)